The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGlacier bay Commercial Fisheries Working Group 1997Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Working Group Meetings And Notes Glacier Bay National Park P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 .Rob Bosworth ! AK Dept. ofFish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802 Liz Cabrera Petersburg Vessel Owners .P.O. Box 232 Petersburg, AK 99833 Nancy Deschu National Park Service 2525 Gambell St., Room 107 Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 Joe Emerson 1 041 0 Dock Street Juneau, AK 99801 Tom Gemmell 3201 Nowell Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1933 David Gray Office of Senator Jerry Mackie State Capitol Room 427 Juneau, AK 99801 Kim f.:Jeacox c. ', ••.. 1 : .•• · ,. National Park Service P,O. Box 140 t;·"' "'l"'"'' GJJstavt~s, AK 99826 ~ ~ .· ' " . ' .. : ! j ! : d'iieg~Howe .\ 1, .1: ,., . _, __ _ Inian Island ~~H;~ral, Deliv~ry u "-• • ·~ ' • ;...... • • '. -. •• RW.? <f9~~r;~·~,~~~~. ~ J '. ';: \ : ~:>< Heinriclt.Kadake, Sr. Kake Tribal Corporation P.O. Box 188 Kake, AK 99830 Dennis Beckely P.O. Box 23197 Juneau, AK 99801 Aaron Brake! 422 East Street Juneau, AK 99801 Tina Cunning AK Dept. ofFish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 Paula Dobbyn KTOO-FM 360 Egan Drive Juneau, AK 99801 E.C. Farley Icy Strait Advisory Committee P.O. Box 182 Gustavus, AK 99826 Sally Gibert Div. of Gov Coord 3601 C Street, Ste 360 Anchorage, AK 9950 1 Mary Hakala P.O. Box 20475 Juneau, AK 99802 JacklJies~k>tf. . Si~i:Wfcteb 241 E. 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 :.:i. Paul Johrt~on Elfin Cove Advisory €ommittte. P.P: B<?~.t2 ~lfm Cove~ AK 99825 . ~, . ~ ~· .... ; r:. ' o~le~K-elley " ·WUtska Trollet!i(/lssociation 130 Seward St., No. 505 Juneau, AK 99801 Jim Becker P.O. Box 240522 Douglas, AK 99824-0522 Bill Brown Friends of Glacier Bay P.O. Box 128 Gustavus, AK 99826 Chip Dennerlein National Parks and Conservation Association 329 F Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 Johann Dybdahl Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Juneau, AK 99801 Dan Foley P.O. Box 67 Gustavus, AK 99826 Ken Grant Hoonah Indian Association P.O. Box602 Hoonah, AK 99829 Dave Hanson ARKTOS Associates 2550 Denali Street, Ste 1614 Anchorage, AK 99503 Ernie Hffitnan One Se~ilaska Plaza, Ste 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Eric Jdtcf':hfntl< · Alask~lMarine Conservation Coori-dip:.;nn l;t JOJ:Gibsori''Pia~ Sitk~;~~9835 Rand,.y King ·::. Natidfial Park Servi;;:e P.o:;13ox 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 Bart Koehler Rep. AI Kookesh Stan Leaphart SEACC State Capitol Room 114 Citizens Advisory Committee 419 6th Street Juneau, AK 99801 3700 Airport Way Juneau, AK 9980 I Fairbanks, AK 99701 Senator Jerry Mackie Jim Makovjak Mary Beth Moss State Capitol Room 427 P.O. Box63 National Park Service Juneau, AK 9980 I Gustavus, AK 99826 P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 Senator Frank Murkowski Doug Ogilvy Peter Ord 705 Hart Building P.O. Box 323 P.O. Box 20475 Washington, DC 20510-Gustavus, AK 99826 Juneau, AK 99802 0202 Diane Regan Rusty Roessler Molly Ross AK Dept. of Fish and Game Pelican Seafoods 1849 C Street NW, Room P.O. Box 25526 P.O. Box 110 3150 Juneau, AK 99802 Pelican, AK 99832 Washington, DC 20240 Sally Rue John Schoen Jev Shelton Office ofthe Lt. Governor National Audubon Society Alaska Trollers' Association P.O. Box 110015 3 08 G Street, #21 7 1670 Evergreen Avenue Juneau, AK 99811-0015 Anchorage, AK 99501 Juneau, AK 99801 Ron Sommerville Greg Streveler Naomi Sundberg 4506 Robbie Road P.O. Box 94 P.O. Box88 Juneau, AK 9980 I Gustavus, AK 99826 Gustavus, AK 99826 Kathy Swiderski Jim Taggart Tom Traibush Attorney General's Office National Park Service P.O. Box 88 1031 West 4th Ave Ste 200 P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 Anchorage, AK 99501-1994 Gustavus, AK 99826 Steve Wells Bruce Weyhrauch Deb Woodruff Alaska Wildlife Alliance Allied Fishermen of SE AK P.O. Box 77 P.O. Box 202022 P.O. Box 32193 Gustavus, AK 99826 Anchorage, AK 99520 Juneau, AK 99803 Frank Wright, Jr. Glen Yankus P.O. Box497 National Park Service Hoonah, AK 99829 2525 Gambell St., Room 107 Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 107 92 ckie ,p- Denri.t,S Beckely P.o.'box 23197 Juneau, AK 9980 I Aaron Brake! 422 East Street Juneau, AK 99801 Tina Cunning'· AK Dept. ofFish and Game · 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 'Patia Dobbyn ·' '::KroO-FM ;•• ·;960 Egan Drive Juneau, AK 99801 E.C. Farley Icy Strait Advisory Committee P.O. Box 182 Gustavus, AK 99826 Sally Gibert Div. of Go;v·'~pord 3601 C Str~ei, Ste 360 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mary Hakala,)'. P.O. Box 20415 Juneau, AK 99802 Jack Hession Sierra Club ·:~~~:n, 241 E. 5th A venue Anchorage, AK 99501 Paul Johnson Elfin Cove Advisory Committee P.O. Box22 _J;,lfin Cove, AK 99825 1'>ale Kelley . " '"'"I , ·jt., .· ATaska Trp,l\~.rs Association l~'lfs~w~&t St., No. sos Juneau, AK 9980 1 Jim !Bec~:er'" ' · ·:: P.O. Box 240522 Douglas, AK 99824-0522 Bill Brown Friends otGlacier Bay P.O. Box 128 Gustavus, AK 99826 Chip Denherlein' · · National1Patks a'nd Conservat161IAssociation 329 F St;ri~t, Suite 208 ~nchorag<k~K 99501 Johann Dy6dahl Sea lliska tbrporation One.Sealaska Plaza Juneau, AK 99801 DanF6iey' •i';:> P.O. Box 67 Gustavus, AK 99826 Ken Grant Hoomilflnai~~ Association P.O. Box 602 Hoona)h AK 99829 Dave Hrtn~61:i '1 ., t.. -1 ~: • •• '·: ARKTOS 1\'ssociates 2550 Denali Street, Ste 1614 Anc,h.OJ;~~ .. AK 99503 \, ' I.. • . '~ Ernie HiHN1art 0 · One Sealaska Plaza, Ste 400 Juneau, AK 99801 Etlu·Jordan Alaskff·Matih~Conservation Council r.)''8 . l9JPibsqp Place S,i~a,AK ~983,Sv Randy Kin~~' .··. ,. Nttt·wnat· Plitt S~M~e P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, AK 99826 I \ • • • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 28, 1997 Contact: John Quinley NPS Public Affairs (907) 257-2696 Glacier Bay Commercial Fishing Topic at Workshop The National Park Service and Alaska Department ofFish and Game are sponsoring a public workshop in early November to discuss the commercial fishing issues in Glacier Bay National Park. The workshop will be held in the Egan Room at Centennial Hall in Juneau on November 6 and 7, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The workshop will provide an opportunity for an informative exchange on the legal, policy and resource issues associated with commercial fishing in the park. The format will include background information on fishing, a description of the proposed Park Service regulations and draft environmental assessment alternatives, and discussion of a tentative schedule for the process. "In April, the NPS published a proposed regulation that would, among other things, phase out commercial fishing within Glacier Bay proper over the next 15 years, while allowing some commercial fisheries in the outer waters to continue," said Glacier Bay Superintendent Jim Brady. "More recently, Senator Frank Murkowski has introduced legislation thaty would establish Glacier Bay as a scientific reserve, within which commercial fishing could continue under state management. In addition, various parties have suggested other approaches over the last several months." The workshops are aimed at increasing public understanding of the different approaches, and finding "an enduring solution reflecting substantial public agreement on the key issues," Brady said. David Hanson, president of ARKTOS Associates of Anchorage, has been contracted by the NPS to provide facilitation and mediation services for this workshop and others which are expected to follow this winter and spring in several Alaska communities and in Seattle. Further information on the workshop is available from Randy King at Glacier Bay National Park, 697-2232, or from Diane Regan at the Alaska Department ofFish and Game, 465-6167. --NPS -- DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Wednesday, December 3, 1997 TONYKNOWLE~GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25526 JUNEAU. AK 99802-5526 PHONE: (907) 46~4100 FAX: (907) 46~2332 Dear Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Working Group Members and Interested Parties: Enclosed is a summary from the November 7, 1997 working group meeting held in Juneau. However, please note this summary represents the results of the meeting and is not a verbatim transcript. If anyone feels their statements are not adequately represented in this summary, we will take time at our next working group meeting, December 16, to make the necessary corrections. Also enclosed is a draft agenda for the December 16 meeting. Sincerely, ~Jt·~~ Diane Regan Information Officer Enclosures Draft Agenda Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game Tuesday, December 16, 1997 8:30a.m. -3:00p.m. ADF&G Commissioner's Large Conference Room 1255 West !J'h Street Juneau, AK 99801 Working Group Members: Allied Fishermen of Southeast: Dale Kelley, Jev Shelton, Doug Ogilvy, Greg Howe, Paul Johnson. Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas: Stan Leaphard, Executive Director. Friends of Glacier Bay: Bill Brown. Hoonah Indian Association: Ken Grant, Frank Wright. National Parks and Conservation Association: Chip Dennerlein, Alaska Director. Sealaska Regional Native Corporation: Ernie Hillman. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Bart Koehler, Greg Streveler. State of Alaska Department ofFish and Game: Rob Bosworth. Alaska Wildlife Alliance Sierra Club: Jack Hession. Purpose: To review Glacier Bay commercial fisheries information available from Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other sources and to continue discussing possible consensus points. 1. Introduction (meeting purpose, introduction of work group members and observers, overview of agenda, and ground rules). 2. Results from last working group meeting and key questions/concerns. 3. Key background data and management questions, National Park Service/ Alaska Department ofFish and Game. 4. Presentation: Fisheries Data and Management in Glacier Bay National Park area, Alaska Department ofFish and Game. 5. General discussion of fisheries data and management/key questions/information. Lunch Break Created on 12/03197 11:13 AM 1 Draft Agenda.doc 6. Review status of draft consensus points. 7. Identified options for fisheries management in Glacier Bay (Outline approaches being considered) 8. Presentation on and discussion of additional option (Greg Streveler and Bart Koehler) 9. General discussion of options and consensus points. 10. Work Assignments 11. January 9 Meeting 3:00 p.m. Adjourn Alaska Department ofFish and Game 1255 W. gth Street Juneau,AK 99801 (907) 465-4100 Created on 12103/97 11 :13 AM 2 Draft Agenda.doc SUMMARY Friday, November 7, 1997; Centennial Hall, Juneau, Alaska Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay meeting sponsored by Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department ofFish and Game Deputy Commissioner Rob Bosworth opened the meeting and distributed an agenda (Attachment A) for the Work Group: • Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska--Dale Kelley, Jev Shelton, Doug Ogilvy, Greg Howe (sitting in for Paul Johnson), Tom Traibush • Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas, Executive Director--Stan Leaphart • Friends of Glacier Bay--Bill Brown • Hoonah Indian Association--Ken Grant (and Frank Wright) • National Parks and Conservation Association, Alaska Director--Chip Dennerlein • SEAiaska Regional Native Corporation--Ernie Hillman (sitting in for Bob Loescher) • Southeast Alaska Conservation Council--Bart Kohler (and Greg Streveler) • State of Alaska, Department ofFish and Game--Rob Bosworth • Alaska Wildlife Alliance [absent] • Sierra Club--Jack Hession [absent] National Park Service Superintendent of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Jim Brady and Department of the Interior Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife , and Parks Molly Ross were invited to the table as ex-officio members . Sally Gibert , State CSU Coordinator for the Governor 's Office Division of Governmental Coordination, facilitated the meeting. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING: "Identify and clarify issues that must be resolved in any lasting solution; discuss adequacy of existing mechanisms for achieving that solution; develop a process that will lead to definition of and agreement on a solution." Sally explained the purpose is to also utilize information presented at yesterday's public meeting by the National Park Service regarding proposed rulemaking for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and ideas for a solution to the issues surrounding commercial fishing in waters surrounding the park unit. INTRODUCTIONS: Sally requested introductions by everyone present with a brief background. In addition to the Work Group above were: Deb Woodruff, Joe Emerson, Charlie Clements, and Gene Farley, all commercial fisherman; Rusty Roessler of Pelican Seafoods, Inc.; Peter Ord, a commercial fisherman adjacent to Glacier Bay concerned about displacement; Sally Rue for the Lt. Governor's office; Dave Hanson, facilitator of the Park Service public meeting on proposed regulations; National Park Service employees Randy King, Chad Soiseth, Jim Taggart, Mary Beth Moss; David Gray, as staff to Senator Mackie; Ron Somerville, as staff to Majority Caucus of House and Senate; Bruce Weyhrauch, attorney for Allied Fishermen. (Attachment B is participants in the November 6 meeting, most of which attended portions of the November 7 meeting.) BACKGROUND: Rob reviewed the products of the 1995/1996 meetings of the Work Group, important recent and upcoming events, status of National Park Service regulations, and draft legislation proposed by Senator Murkowski. The Work Group members reviewed the 1995/1996 "6-Points" document and schedule of other targets such as the Murkowski legislation hearing on February 26 and the National Park Service's Glacier Bay regulations schedule aimed for final regulations in July 1998. The Work Group discussed the "6 Points" document, confirming it is a series of issues and possible compromises discussed at the 1996 meetings, with the understanding that the representatives would go to their groups for direction or develop new ideas for the Work Group. The Work Group concluded unanimously that the document does NOT reflect consensus but serves as a reference of outstanding issues. Greg's compilation on marine reserves, done under contract for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game so the Work Group could know what is involved in the reserve concept, was added to the agenda. ROUND TABLE: A representative for each interest group presented statements of the group's position or suggestions for resolution, as follows: Chip Dennerlein, NPCA: The challenge to finding resolution is based on a fundamental disagreement whether commercial fishing can continue without impact to Glacier Bay resources or fishing is halted to provide a marine reserve. The State of Alaska is a good manager, and fishermen conduct themselves well, but the marine reserve is a valuable concept in the artificial construct of a park. My three goals for resolution: ( 1) the park as a positive neighbor and the solution fair to fishermen, (2) meaningful partnership with the State, 3) finality to conflicts reached through science and cooperative management. Bart Kohler, SEACC: Working together on these issues toward a solution, we'll be more likely to succeed with acceptable regulations and/or legislation. In 1992, we supported legislation through a similar process but the last vote failed by only one senator. We represent environmentalists uniquely because we also live and fish here and work with communities, all of whom depend on Glacier Bay for other values as well as the commercial fishery. Our role is to find middle ground-we offer a reasonable solution: • allow commercial fishing to continue in outer waters in perpetuity, • close the inner bay to commercial fishing and motorized vessel use in wilderness waters (with some boundary adjustments of the wilderness waters), • continue some commercial fishing in the Beardslees, • allow commercial fishing to continue in the remainder of the Bay subject to conduct of studies in some areas that may result in some further restrictions in the inner waters • continue subsistence fishing and gathering in Glacier Bay Bill Brown, Friends of Glacier Bay: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve can serve as a model of coexistence of local and national interests if a solution is carefully crafted. Clearly developed issues from earlier sessions include the proposal of cooperative management of continued commercial fisheries in the outer waters. Possibilities for the Bay proper include the marine reserve concept with both open and closed fishing areas, and the judicial closure in wilderness waters. Dependent local fishermen whose fishing areas are closed should be provided some means of an economically acceptable, fair, and decent transition. That would be a long term sustaining relationship of all cultures and communities dependent on it. Let's focus on areas we are close to agreement first. Stan Leaphart, Executive Director of Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas: A solution needs to be based on all the work that has gone on before: the fisheries are well- managed by the State and should continue without any impact on the park. In acknowledgment of the national interest in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, we are looking for a locally crafted solution everyone can support, then go to Washington DC to get a legislated solution with certainty. We want to help to facilitate solution. Dale Kelley, Allied Fishermen: "Allied Fishermen" supports the statements of previous speakers that we have areas of agreement. Our interests are:. 2 • Recognize families and communities are extremely reliant on fishing in this area. • State management of fisheries should continue, which includes fishermen as part of the regulatory process. • Commercial fisheries should continue in the subject waters. • A statutory solution based on local consensus is necessary, because regulations are not a final solution. • Continuation of commercial fishing in the outer waters is critical to fishermen and a necessary premise for us to work toward a solution on the inner waters. Ken Grant, Hoonah Indian Association: We have serious concern and reservations regarding these meetings. We have earned the right to be hesitant in these meetings because of our long history of losing rights in the park. We want the park values preserved, but the economics are also a major concern. In the past, wherever we have yielded some right to the government, we have not been able to get it back. The demographics of the area is key to our life and communities, and we've moved on to other areas due to changes in management of the park. We have demonstrated our interests to the park officials in DC, and the president has signed the tribal agreements which resulted in the MOU signed between the tribe and Park superintendent. Molly Ross, Department of the Interior: We have a proposed rule out for public comment and will take notes here to add to the record on the proposed rulemaking. The following represents our position for consideration ofthis Work Group's efforts: • Commercial extraction is presumed to be inappropriate for a park • The biological goal is not to find and prevent specific harm but to recognize the park as a special place to prevent extraction for a natural system as a baseline. We can't figure out what might be harmed but need places where there is no extraction. • The long history of extraction makes the closure hard for people. The National Park Service is trying to be fair in finding a solution, e.g., considering continuing fishing in the outside waters. The proposed regulations make significant concessions regarding the outer waters to offer compensation and phase out of commercial fishermen. • We disagree with the State over ownership and management of"park waters". None of us are going to get everything we want. The rulemaking process will be weighed in by more people outside of this process. Jim Brady, NPS Superintendent; ( 1 ). A proposed rule is out for public consideration, (2) the rule is a framework of the essence of important park values as a means to focus further discussions, (3) we are willing and committed to listen and consider all input, but the Work Group is very important. We hope to bring this to conclusion this year. Greg Streveler, SEACC: The concept of a marine reserve is a hot, new concept with theoretical attractiveness for people dealing with fisheries, but it is nebulous. A marine reserve system was implemented in New Zealand 20 years ago which protects an area and enhances fisheries but is an untested idea in our latitudes and size of the Glacier Bay area. Two concepts need resolution for Glacier Bay: jurisdiction and continuing current activities. This provides an opportunity to be innovative, to devise a reserve or marine conservation area of protection without categorically excluding all commercial fishing. Rob Bosworth, ADF&G: The outstanding issues include: whether commercial fisheries continue on the outer coast in perpetuity, whether fisheries continue in wilderness waters areas, et cetera, and there is a need to compromise. Without common ground in an Alaskan solution, a National Park Service regulatory process will unilaterally preclude cooperative fisheries management----<:onflicting state and federal regulations will result in further litigation. Enforcement violations, stress, and additional restrictions on fishing opportunity will result. We need middle ground in continuing commercial fisheries. The state will not relinquish its claim to 3 submerged lands and management of its resources. Kathy Swiderski, Assistant Attorney General, confirmed that the State of Alaska will not relinquish its claims to jurisdiction over the submerged lands and waters, so the key is-Is there some other way we can go without compromising our jurisdictional claims? ISSUES DISCUSSION: Bart, Dale, Greg, and Rob offered a list to start a discussion (Attachment C) of issues the Work Group may agree on. The bullets are "draft consensus points" from past efforts or issues which were close to agreement (a subsistence or cultural fishery should be added). Considerable discussion followed, covering: • what constitutes good research, and where "will" or "shall be" studies by whom • a Glacier Bay advisory committee • wilderness waters adjustments • fishermen fish both sides of outer waters boundary; no clear data on harvests in Park • limits on gear and effort; no trawling and dredging; no new gear types • capping participation doesn't consider natural cycles of resources; harvest levels are based on abundance; limiting effort more appropriate but no resource problem. Halibut, crab, and salmon fisheries are controlled by entry programs • commercial fishing continues in outer water, in the south end of the Bay • halibut fishing and troll fisheries stay as is • portions of the Beardslees stay open to commercial fishing • State remains manager of fisheries • science research will assess the impact of commercial fisheries in portions of Bay • habitat protection important • science includes research, monitoring, identification of stocks; pollution studies • cooperative management plan by the State and Secretary • Alaska Board ofFish designate Glacier Bay as a special fishery management zone • "marine conservation area" keeps commercial fishing but tests different fishing • 15 year reevaluation or automatic closure, by whom, by what process • migratory species in the outer waters do not reside in "park" waters • state managers retain ability to respond to changes in fisheries, adapt new techniques • resident or sensitive species are special attributes related to the park • need to identify park objectives; is State management consistent with park Over lunch break, a subgroup combined and rewrote items #1 and #2 of Attachment C. The Work Group edited, resulting in the following rewrite: • "Present fisheries remain open in outer waters in perpetuity, subject to review of objectives defined in a cooperative management plan on a regular basis. Management continues by the Alaska Board of Fish and/or IPHC process under terms of a cooperative management plan. It is understood that the fisheries for migratory salmon and halibut are appropriately managed and do not pose specific concerns in this area. In the event the management system for any species does not respond to a grave concern involving park purposes and resources, the Secretary may exercise federal management authority to address problems, subject to specific and other biological criteria. Identified species of concern will require special management attention." All of the Work Group agreed this language needs some wordsmithing and reorder but is significant in serving as "placeholder" for this issue, representing the Work Group agreement in concept. 4 WILDERNESS WATERS: The Work Group then discussed the concept of proposed revised wilderness waters boundaries. DOl is not willing to modify boundaries just to accommodate commercial fishing but can, if it is based on wilderness values. The Work Group revisited earlier efforts such as in 1986 wilderness swaps were worked out to provide more contiguous wilderness areas; these proposals were not included in the National Park Service's wilderness EIS process. The Service's proposed regulations in relation to the Beardslees, would close areas that have been fished for years with only limited area open as part of the study. In turn, the visitor interest in the upper Bay has dramatically increased and has significant wilderness values that could be designated with limited impact on fishing. The current court ruling requires the entire Wilderness waters to be closed. Further discussion wilderness waters was postponed to the next meeting of the Work Group. Proposed issue #5 was discussed to recognize special park values within the bay proper, identifying the need for new information before regulations and without totally phasing out all fishing. SEACC summarized status of the Work Group's efforts at this point: • the outer waters stay open, • wilderness waters are closed, • other inner waters remain open subject to certain studies and possible closures. This replaces specific phase-outs and opens up some possibilities for some marine reserve concept that is partially no-take and others some-take areas. A technical advisory group would be working with National Park Service and the State to be sure whatever problems are brought forward are looked at in a reasonable and rational way. Changes in fisheries management (e.g., regulations which are applied spatially, temporally, etc.) to protect park or fisheries resources may be done as a result of cooperative studies. Discussion continued on how the latter studies and cooperative process could be implemented. The Work Group was reminded National Park Service's goal is to have no commercial fishing in the Bay. Concerns addressed whether phasing out commercial fishing in the Bay proper was making "wilderness" waters in the entire Bay proper, instead of just where designated Wilderness, versus a marine "reserve" which allows some commercial fishing to continue. The Work Group agreed to look at specific fisheries in the Bay waters and options for a marine reserve. The Work Group also evaluated the concept of appropriate standard in relation to continuing fishing in the Bay by those with historical association and dependency. The Service's goal is to close commercial fishing during summer but with a compelling case of local folks at other times of year, the National Park Service could consider options besides total phase out Work Group members raised examples of other parks with non-conforming uses and inholdings that protect life tenancy. Discussion also addressed building political support for whatever results the Work Group achieves. NEXT: The Work Group agreed to meet in Juneau in December to continue discussion of the issues prior to the National Park Service session on the regulations scheduled in January. Consideration will be given to narrowing the focus of discussions to resolve each issue to get closure before going to the next topic. Many expressed interest in following through on further details, particularly to explore whether and where commercial fishing could continue compatible with the park purposes in the Bay .. 5 DEC-2-97 TUE 16:28 AK FISH & GAME FAX NO. 9072672472 P. 06 S'u ~ M ~-f<-/ ,ff!b.4,e,t-A Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game Friday, Novep11:!er 7 --8:30-3:00 Centennial Hall, Juneau Alaska work group members: Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska; Alaska Wildlife Alliance; Citizen's Advisory Committee on Federal Areas; Friends of Glacier Bay; Hoonah Indian Association; National Parks and Conservation Association; Sealaska; Sierra Club; Southeast Alaska Conservation Council; State of Alaska; U.S. National Park Servke (ex-officio). PURPOSE: Identify and clarify issues that must be resolved in any lasting solution; discuss adequacy of existing mechanisms for achieving that solution; develop a process that will lead to definition of and agreement on a solution. I. 8:30 -Introductions: working group members and observers. 2. Where we are: brief review of the 1995/1996 meetings. important recent events (including previous day's meeting), upcoming events, status of regulations, draft legislation. 3. Roundtable: interest group statements (optional); 3 minutes each 4. Ground Rules: review 1996 ground rules. 5. Desc.-ibe key concepts: define elements of a solution (things that need to be resolved). Is it possible to develop consensus points at this time? 6. Building a basis for agreement: What are the issues and approaches upon which we can agree? What are the issues that need more discussion? (lunch break) 5 Summary: The elements of a solution; direction we're headed; 6. Assignments: work to be accomplished before the next meeting (drafting committee? group caucuses?) 7. Future Meetings: discussion 3:00-Adjourn DEC-2-97 TUE 16:28 AK FISH & GAME NOV-18-97 TUE 04:21 PH OOI1NR'S. QFFJCE fWE~G .. Wilfuwl~ Prie.ads of Glacier Bay . P.O. Box 135 Gustavus, Ak 998:M Sum Leaphart Citizen's Advisot)' Committee 3700 Airport Way \. Fairb~AK. mor · .Jim Beeker- P.O. Box 240122 Dcntgl.:tsl AK 99324--0522 Rmty Roessler PElican~ P.O. Box llO Peli~ A:E.. 99832 E.C. Farley ley Strait A~ Connuittee P.O. Bo~ 182 Cw.tR.'VUS, AK 99S26 Naomi Sundbera P.O. Boll': IJS Gustavus. AK 99826 Fnmk Wrlgh-c Jr. .,.0. :Sox 497 Hoonah, AX 99329 Kenneth Grant Hoonah Indian AsSD P.O. Box602 . Hoonah, AX. 99i29 TorQ Traibush P.o. Boxn Gustavus, AK ~'~16 Kathy Swiderski Attom6)" Oetwal's Offic:e 1031 We1t 4"' AVf: Ste 200 Anch~Alt 99501-1994 FAX NO. 9072672472 FAX NO. 1 +907 t465t~~~? ..• De'b Wood.tufi' P.O. 1\o:x, 77 Ga."<tnu!!, AK. 99826 TmaCmming AK. Depattwmt ofFish and Game .13~ Ra!p\)ercy Road Aneh~t,AK. 99518 Greg Hom Tnian IslAnd General Delfvery Elfin Co~ AK 9982~ Heimieh. KadaKe ST. Kake Tn'Dal Corporation P.O. Do:~t 188 Kakr:. AK 998:;0 Ron S'*"e,rville 4506 Robbie Road Juneau, AK. 99801 Bart ~ehler SEACC 419 Sb:th Stteet Ste'328 Juneau. AX. 99801 Paula Dobbyn KTQO..FM 3~EgmDn'Ve Juneau,. AK 99801 PeterOrd P.O. Box 20475 Junee, AK 99802 Ein\e Hillman . On& Seals.ska :Plaza Sto 400 Juneau., AK 99801 MolqRosa 1349 C Street·NW Room31SO. W~ D.C. 20240 DEC-2-87 TUE 16:28 AK FISH & GAME • NOV-18-97 TUE 04:21 PM COMMR'S OFFICE ADF~G ,-.,,._*'. _,._,~, ... ~..........,,. ...._.......,.,..,...,;.n, ~· • .....,Jt.... t""f!11T" I .... .,. Silly Gibert Division m Governmtl!b!l Coordination 3601 C S'tl;eef Ste 360 Ancllomgt. AK. 99501 Aaron Brakel 422 Bast Street Juneau. A):. 99801 Da'llid Gn.y O:ffi~ of Senator Jeu:y M.a.ckie State Capito1ltootu 427 1un~AK 99801 Dale Kelley ATNAESA 130 Sew-ard #SOS 1uneau, AK 99801 .A.l.a.lilka Toll~ s A.!l.'!lt1. Jev Shelton 1670 'Evetgteen Avenue Juneau. A:K 99go l 1oeEm~on 10410 Dock~et ~A.Jc: 99801 Greg Streveler P.O.Bw::76 Gu.;1aV\1S, AK 99326 Tom Gemmell :1201 Nowell A"l(!llUe Juneau. AX 99S01-19~3 Chip Den:nerletn National.Faxks & Coosavation Assn 329 F S~ Suite 2.08 Anchoraae. AK 99501 Gtat:i~ Bay Nattonal Pad!: P.O. Box 140 Ou.~~. 1\K. 99826 FAX NO. 9072672472 FAX NO. 1+907+465+2332 I GlenY~ National Pnk Service I"'V ..... :7 2525 GruhbellS~etRoom 107 Anchorage, AK 99503~289:2 Alllied-fishermen of SB Al~ Broce W~lu:a.uch P.O. Box3219S Iuneau, AK 99803 DougOgilvy P.O.BOX:323 ~Ak99826 Sally :Rue Offite a£ the Lt Guve.tnQt P.O. Box 110015 .funeau. AK. 99811...0015 lJexmis Beckely P.O. Bo11: 23197 Juneau,AK 99&01 ' Diane Regan AX Department ofFish It Game P.O. 8o:'!t25526 !ube.au, AK 99802 NaacyD~u National Park SE!!Vice 25:25 O:ambell ~ RoonJ.l07 ~horaee, AK 9950:J .. zm R.ob BoSW<Jlth AK Department ofFim & Gam~ P.O. Sox2$526 Juneau..Ak 99811-5526 Dave Hamon ARKTOS Associates 2550 Denali Stnet Ste 1614 Ancboraa~ AK 99503 :. P. 08 DEC-2-87 TUE 16:28 AK FISH & GAME \ ~ I Draft Consensus Points For Discussion purposes Only November 7, 1997 1-11 • Commercial fishing should continue in perpetuity in outer coast waters, Icy Strait, [and perhaps Glacier Bay Entrance, (Glacier Bay entrance consists of waters of Glacier Bay south of a line between the westernmost tip of Strawberry Is, and the point at /he S. Entrance of Berg Bay, exclusive of Beardslee Is. Wilderness.)} Fishing should not exceed harvest · levels in existence prior to 1997. Fishing should include only gear in use prior to 1997. i i ~ :;1. • Fisheries should be managed by the state, through the Alaska Board of Fisheries. If the Secretary believes the Board of Fisheries has not adequately addressed a resource concern the Secretary may exercise closure authority for resource protection, subject to specific l biological criteria. Wildemess waters are closed to commercial fishing, although subject to possible boundary adjustments that provide for important fisheries (no net loss of wilderness acreage). There will be no new fisheries !' "J • Waters north of the Glacier Bay entrance, in non-wilderness, should be managed for multiple j-l!.. • ·r' (. ,) . _ . ..-(. / . objectives, guided by scientific studies that have clear objectives. Any scientific studies must be cooperative between all agencies and the fishing industry. Research plans must be reviewed by a neutral party and all studies must be subjected to peer review. Research must be conducted over a long enough time to provide meaningful information for decision·makers. A multi-agency scientific research and monitoring program should evaluate the health of fishery resources in Glacier Bay proper, and assess the impacts tof commercial fishing on park resources and purposes. Any additional regulations that may be necessary to protect the marine ecosystems and resources of the park, the scientific value of those ecosystems and resources, and other park resources and purposes, must be based on the results of the research and monitoring program, There should be a Glacier Bay technical/stakeholder group that advises the NPS, ADF&G, Board of Fisheries, and other agencies, which includes science and interest group participation and has an effective role in guiding fisheries research and management. -f- i • The Beardslee Island crab fishery should be considered for life tenancy -· • . .. - .. . ~ • . ~. .. ... ' , .... Crabber 15. '97 1 .... ... . ' .. • • .. . . . "~ .. . .. .., --- • .. • • I .. • Suggested Agenda Commercial Dungeness Crabbing in Beardslee Islands Informal Discussion of Concerns Time: 1:30 p.m., December 15, 1997 Place: ADF&G Conference Room, Juneau, Alaska Invited Participants: / ---Deb Woodruff & Charlie Clements (697-2293) Naomi Sundberg and Tom Traibush (697-2331)~ ~ -phoYJG Matt Metcalf ( 541-7 41-8694) ---<>tto Florschultz (874-2522) Dale Kelly (586-9400) Bart Koehler (586-6942) Greg Streveler (586-4418/697-2287) Randy King (697-2230) Rob Bosworth (465-4100) Dave Hanson (276-8827). Put:pose: Informally discuss alternatives regarding Dungeness crabbing activities in the Beardslee Island area of Glacier Bay National Park. 1. Introduction: purpose, participant introductions, and additions/changes to the agenda. 2. Review previously suggested proposals for Beardslee Islands crabbing activities. 3. Review new proposal for Beardslee Islands crabbing activies (Bart Koehler, Greg Streveler). 4. Discuss current positions ofvarious parties. 5. Discuss solution possibilities. 6. Deterine follow-up actions, if any. 7. Adjourn. DRAFT An experimental approach to quantify the effects of commercial fishing on the Dungeness crab population in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Collaborating Agencies: Multi-Agency Dungeness Study (MADS). Glacier Bay Field Station, Biological Resources Division, United States Geological Survey; Juneau Center for Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks; and Auke Bay Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service. Introduction Recent increases in Dungeness crab harvests in southeastern Alaska have resulted in the capture of a large proportion of the iegal stock (Koeneman 1985). High exploitation rates coupled with reductions in escapement under the sex and size regulations presently will result in a decrease in the maximum size of males in the population toward the legal size limit. Release from human exploitation by closure of the fishery should, over time, result in a shift in the crab population to larger males. Because males clasp smaller females during mating (Snow & Nielson 1966; Shirley and McNutt 1989), an increase in the abundance of large males may result in a greater probability of successful fertilization of the eggs of large females. A consequence might be an increase in the relative abundance of ovigerous vs. nonovigerous large females and perhaps an increase in the percentage of fertilized eggs in the clutches of large females. This assumes that the size of male crabs limits successful fertilization of the clutches of large females in the present exploited population. Controlled experiments testing the impact of human exploitation on the population structure of harvested marine species are rare. Closures of crustacean fisheries are usually prompted by major declines in the abundance of the harvested species; the result is that the fishery usually collapses. Such closures normally remain in effect only until there is evidence that the fished stocks are rebounding; rarely is there an opportunity to compare changes in the structure of populations in the closed area with comparable nearby populations still under exploitation. The elimination of commercial fishing, including Dungeness crab fishing, in the designated Wilderness areas of the Park will provide a rare opportunity for a controlled experiment on the impact of fishing on the structure and reproductive potential of the Dungeness crab population(s). Comparisons of the crab population structure in fished and non-fished areas will markedly enhance the information base available to NPS managers in evaluating the relationship between commercial fishing activities and protection of Park resources during the interim seven-year allowance. Furthermore, such an experiment should prove valuable to all agencies involved. in fisheries management in Alaska. Methods Study Sites. The study area includes six locations in southeastern Alaska. Three of the selected study sites, north Beardslee Islands (58°33'N 135°54'W), south Beardslee Islands (58°30'N 135°54'W) and Secret Bay (58°29'N 135°56'W) are within Wilderness. Two DRAFT study sites, Berg Bay (58°31 'N 136°13'W) and Bartlett Cove (58°27'N 135°53'W), are in Park waters not designated as Wilderness and one study site, Gustavus Flats (58°23'N 135°43'W), is outside the Park. We propose an experimental study to measure the effects of fishing on Dungeness crab population size and structure and catch per unit effort (CPUE) by comparing population parameters and CPUE among study sites. In addition to estimates of population density and descriptions of size distributions of crabs, we will characterize the physical condition of individual crabs and the reproductive condition of female crabs during the brooding period. The pre-closure studies were initiated in 1992 and thus we have the necessary baseline information that is critical for interpreting the results ofthe post-closure studies. During the post-closure study we propose closing commercial fishing in Bartlett Cove and the South Beardslee Islands. The other study sites would remain open to commercial fishing (Secret Bay, North Beardslee Islands and Berg Bay) and would serve as the controls in our study. Gustavus Flats is outside the Park and thus commercial fishing would also continue. Sampling Methods, Part 1: Commercial Crab Pot Sampling. Commercial crab pots measuring 0.91 min diameter and 0.36 m deep are used for crab collection. The crab pots are baited with salmon or cod hanging bait and chopped squid and herring in bait cups. The escape ports are sealed with webbing to retain smaller crabs. Twice a year (April and September), we set 50 pots in each study site. The pots are allowed to fish for 24 hours at each site, and the five study sites are fished on five consecutive days. Twenty-five pots are set in relatively shallow water (0-9m) and 25 are set deep (1 0-25m) at each site. Depth, GPS location, time of pot set and time of pot pull are recorded for each pot. Depth is later converted to depth relative to mean lower low water. Water temperature and salinity profiles are recorded in each location during each sampling period with a SEABIRD SBE-19 Profiler, a profiling conductivity-temperature-depth meter (CTD). As pots are pulled, number and species of all organisms in the pot are recorded. Dungeness crabs are measured, . examined and returned to the water. Carapace width (immediately anterior to the 1Oth anterolateral spine) is measured in millimeters using vernier calipers. Shell condition is assigned by appearance and feel to one of the following four categories: Soft: shell is soft to the touch; New: spines are sharp, shell is clean and free of fouling organisms; Old: shell is not as bright, spines are dull, some fouling organisms present; Skip-molt: spines are very dull, shell has fouling organisms (Somerton and Macintosh 1983). All appendages are examined and all incidences of damaged, regenerating or missing appendages are recorded. Damage to the carapace is also recorded (Shirley and Shirley 1988). Females are examined for sperm plugs, eggs, or matted setae. Color of the clutches of ovigerous females is recorded. Dungeness females that have eggs or matted setae are considered to be "reproductive" females. Sampling Methods, Part 2: Dive Transects. SCUBA divers census crabs on 2 m x 100 m belt transects in the depth range from 0 (mean lower low water) to 20m. The transects, positioned randomly at each study site, are laid perpendicular to shpre and divided into 2 x 10m quadrats within which crabs are counted. Usually 20 transects are established at each site during each sampling period. The number of quadrats per site per sampling ranges from DRAFT 150-200. We record the depth range and the physical substrate of each quadrat. Adult crabs [carapace width (CW) > 116 mm for males; CW > 100 mm for females] are counted separately by gender and female reproductive class (ovigerous or nonovigerous). Female crabs bearing an egg clutch on their pleopods are considered to be ovigerous. Because of limited dive time, nonovigerous females are not examined further for matted pleopodal setae or sperm plugs. /.:zh? DRAFT GLACIER BAY EXPERIMENTAL FISHERIES CLOSURE STUDY: Rational for size and shape of areas. A. GENERAL NEEDS FOR CLOSURE SITES -Limited movement between open and closed study areas (especially during the fishing season. -Multiple replicates in each study site or between sites for increased statistical validity. -Both closed and open sites can be matched for habitat types. -Preexisting data on movement and habitat selection for the sites. -Sites are located so that studies are logistically feasible. B. DUNGENESS CRAB SITES -Current information indicates that movement of adults between the MADS study sites is very limited (i.e. no movement between sites has been detected). -The sites will give us two replicates (two matching pairs of open and closed sites). -All Closed and Open areas can be matched for habitat types. -Extensive data sets exist on the habitat selection, population distribution and abundance and past fishing effort in the proposed study sites.· -Sites are of equivalent sizes. -Boundaries follow crab fishing monitoring boundaries C. PACIFIC HALIBUT SITE -Extensive sonic tracking data indicates that movement of adults between the Mid-Bay and Lower Bay/Icy Strait (through Sitakaday Narrows) is limited during the fishing season. -Site is of sufficient size that multiple replicates of different habitat types can be established in both the open and closed sites. -Similar matching habitat types can be found between the open and closed sites. -Extensive data sets exist on movement, diet, habitat selection, population distribution and abundance in the open and closed sites. Figure 2. Research boundaries for proposed Multi-Agency Dungeness Crab Study showing areas open and closed to Dungeness crab '"'hing for study duration. . \ Flapjack I. \(J' Beardslee Entrance " Closed Beartrack Cove /z.A.? DRAFT ' Flapjack I. Beardslee Entrance \(J' 18 E Beartrack Cove (), 1,' 0-.{. J i' ( tf' ~ 0 dl' \-( t /'tt/J ( t_ kr SO ~ofs s/,"1/u~ de07 s~r ~·ut. 1 :-lao n-. ln. /..)_76-/i~f ; 1 ... . .... .. ... ., • • • 11-K2LH DEPARTMENTOFFISHANDGAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER November 28, 1997 TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR P. 0. BOX 25526 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802·5526 PHONE: {907) 465-4100 FACSIMILE: (907) 465·2332 Dear Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Working Group member and other interested persons: As I stated at our last meeting, I'd like to see if we can get the working group together again for a meeting in December. Accordingly, I am scheduling a meeting of the Working Group for December 16 from 8:30a.m. to 3:00p.m. at the Alaska Department ofFish and Game main conference room, in Juneau. My intention at this meeting will be to focus on what we know about the fisheries that occur in Glacier Bay and how the available information might apply to a particular management alternative. I do not yet have an agenda for the meeting, but I believe important areas for discussion will include species and gear; effort; timing ofharvest activity; harvest history and trends; and how the state's fisheries conservation and management programs are used in Glacier Bay.· Any additional time could be spent discussing the draft consensus points, picking up where we left off at the last meeting. I welcome your suggestions on agenda topics. Sincerely, Rob Bosworth Deputy Commissioner Draft Agenda Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Tuesday, December 16, 1997 8:30a.m.-3:00p.m. ADF&G Commissioner's Large Conference Room 1255 West gh Street Juneau, AK 99801 Working Group Members: Allied Fishermen of Southeast: Dale Kelley, Jev Shelton, Doug Ogilvy, Greg Howe, Paul Johnson. Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas: Stan Leaphard, Executive Director. Friends of Glacier Bay: Bill Brown. Hoonah Indian Association: Ken Grant, Frank Wright. National Parks and Conservation Association: Chip Dennerlein, Alaska Director. Sealaska Regional Native Corporation: Ernie Hillman. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Bart Koehler, Greg Streveler. State of Alaska Department ofFish and Game: Rob Bosworth. Alaska Wildlife Alliance Sierra Club: Jack Hession. Purpose: To review Glacier Bay commercial fisheries information available from Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other sources and to continue discussin1~ possible consensus points. 1. Introduction (meeting purpose, introduction of work group members and observers, overview of agenda, and ground rules). 2. Results from last working group meeting and key questions/concerns. 3. Key background data and management questions, National Park Service/Alaska Department ofFish and Game. 4. Presentation: Fisheries Data and Management in Glacier Bay National Park area, Alaska Department ofFish and Game. 5. General discussion of fisheries data and management/key questions/information. Lunch Break Created on 12/0319711:13 AM 1 Draft Agenda.doc 6. Review status of draft consensus points. 7. Identified options for fisheries management in Glacier Bay (Outline approaches being considered) 8. Presentation on and discussion of additional option (Greg Streveler and Bart Koehler) 9. General discussion of options and consensus points. 10. Work Assignments 11. January 9 Meeting 3:00 p.m. Adjourn Alaska Department ofFish and Game 1255 W. 8th Street Juneau,AK 99801 (907) 465-4100 Created on 12/03/97 11 :13 AM 2 Draft Agenda.doc November 26, 1997 R. King DRAFT Information Needs for Commercial Fisheries Within Glacier Bay National Park Preface: Acknowledge and identify any existing data limitations or qualifiers with respect to fisheries information needs. QUESTIONS • Apportioning harvest to the park where statistical reporting units include areas outside the park; • Reliability of data; • Confidentiality issues. What are the commercial fisheries presently occurring within the park? For the four main park fisheries (longlining for halibut, trolling for salmon, pot fishing for Dungeness and Tanner Crab): • Describe and confirm gear type(s), methods, average size of vessel and crew; • What is its particular history within the park? (How long, which areas, harvest levels); • Where, specifically, within the park does the fishery take place? (What % of total harvest/effort is attributed to each area. Differentiate, if possible, outer water areas from Glacier Bay proper. Within the bay, differentiate to degree possible among sub-areas -lower (mouth to Strawberry Island), middle (Strawberry Island to East and West Arms) and upper Glacier Bay (East and West Arms above Tlingit Point), and designated wilderness; • What% of harvest would be effected by the proposed May-September closure of Glacier Bay? • When does the fishing take place?(% harvested in the spring, summer, fall and winter for each area of the park, or other seasonal breakdown); • How many fishermen are participating in the fishery throughout the park? (Of these, how many are fishing outer waters V s Glacier Bay proper; how many are fishing in each of the wilderness areas); DRAFT • Where do the fishermen come from? How many are from Gustavus, Hoonah, Elfin Cove, and Pelican? How many are from other SE communities? And, how many are from areas outside SE Alaska. • How many fishermen would meet proposed NPS criteria for participation in Glacier Bay proper fisheries for halibut, salmon, Dungeness and Tanner crab (valid permit holder, minimum of 6 year history of particip'l.tion within the bay, 1987 -1996); • How many fishermen meet these criteria for the Beardslee Island wilderness fishery for Dungeness crab? For other resident fisheries (rockfish, lingcod, weathervane scallops, shrimp): • Describe and confirm gear type(s), methods, and average size of vessel and crew; • What is its particular history within the park, including harvest levels? • Where, specifically, within the park does the fishery take place? • When does the fishing take place?(% harvested in the spring, S\lllllller, fall and winter for each area of the park, or other seasonal breakdown); • How many fishermen are participating in the fishery? How many are from Gustavus,· Hoonah, Elfin Cove, and Pelican? How many are from other SE communities? And, how many are from areas outside SE Alaska. Management Questions • How is each of the fisheries managed? • How are fishery management plans and regulations developed? • What are the management objectives and how are they determined? • How are management objectives measured; how do we know whether they are being achieved? 2 • What mechanisms are in place to track fisheries harvest within the park and ensure that harvest report information is accurate? DRAFT • How are species sensitive to over-harvest -including demersal shelf rockfish, lingcod, and weathervane scallops -protected under current management? • How does current management serve to prevent localized depletion of resident or sensitive species within the park? • How are salmon runs terminating in the park protected under current management? • How is bycatch of non-targeted species avoided or managed? • How does current management serve to protect habitat? • What are the effects of commercial fishing on the population structure of harvested species? How are the effects of fishing measured? • What are the effects of current management on interdependent species and ecosystem processes? Is this a factor or consideration in determining management objectives? How are the effects of fishing measured? • What role does stock assessment and monitoring play in management of fisheries? What stock assessment activities are occurring? • What level of biological information is presently available regarding the health of fisheries within the park? • What is the role of research iri management of fisheries? What applicable research is underway or planned? Possible Economic Questions • What is the ex-vessel economic value of each fishery? (How has this changed over time); • What is the relative importance of this fishery to the economies of local communities (defined as including Pelican, Elfin Cove, Hoonah and Gustavus)? 3 • What is the relative importance of this fishery to the regional economy of Southeast Alaska? • What is the relative importance of this fishery to individual fishermen? 4 Elaboration of a Possible Position on GB Inner Waters Fisheries Greg Streveler First Draft 12/9/97 In my 11/28 paper entrtled "Toward a Centnst Posrtron on Commercral Frshrng", I outlrne a possrble way of resolvrng Inner Waters frshenes questrons that combrnes some mrx of three maJOr elements: 1-the srze and confuguration of the rnner waters boundary; 2-which frshenes will contrnue withrn that boundary; and 3-how any drscontrnued frshenes will be phased out. Please refer to that paper for various optrons wrthin each element. My purpose here rs to select a partrcular mrx that seems to Bart & me to have ment, and to elaborate a brt on rt. S~:e/Confrquratron: choose optron "c" A lrne at Strawberry Island cuts across the Bay mouth at the northernmost place where the mouth rs well-defined. It leaves a very manageable and bathymetncally coherent unrt rn rnner waters. wh1le excluding halibut grounds of maJor fishenes Importance. F1shenes: choose options "a", "b" & "c" There rs no good brologrcal JUStificatron for halting "a". king salmon w1nter troll1ng. Or1 "b", I'd suggest that certarn parts of the Bay most likely to have relatrvely separate Tanner populations be placed off-l1mrts to frshrng (the Murr Inlet complex, maybe?), but that others be left open. Thrs would allow for signifrcant population reservoirs. and for control <3reas Important for frsherres sc1ence. The same strategy m1ght work for "c" as well, but rt rs mess1er than for Tanners srnce the marn Beardslee fish1ng grounds rs harder to d1vvy up. ti,nother way to handle things would be to allow a long (lifetime?) phaseout of the entire fishery . . tC'' Phaseout: choose opt1on "a" excep~for the Dungeness f1shery Long phaseouts are very messy thrngs and subJeCt to polrtrcal manrpulatron. However, rf th1s 1s the oniy way to solve the Beardslee crab 1ssue, so bert. nws part1cuiar m1x of elements emphasrzes srmplrcrty and frnalrty. In addrtron, 1t places a good management un1t 1n Inner Waters. whrle allow1ng enough halibut grounds to remarn outside that 1t IS perhaps fa1r to termrnate the rest of that fishery. It allows fisheries that have the strongest rationale for continuing to do so, while fa1rly compensating others who are closed out. Of course tr1ere are other, hopefully secondary rssues to be resolved for Inner Waters beyond those ment1oned above. Some of these are~ -what comb1nat1on of agenc1es will manage the f1shenes -how adv1sory groups w1ll be structured and what mandate they will have -the messy deta1ls of compensat1on -the basrs for management (can we shift over to stock assessment?) .. ···___.. ---------------Toward --A--Centrist-Position --on -Commerc-ia~__J;:ishing ----------- Greg Streveler Second Draft 11/28/97 During negotiations on fisheries in Glacier Bay NP, park waters have come to be subdivided into three somewhat overlapping categories: -"Outer Waters", which include all park waters outside Glacier Bay proper, and perhaps some additional waters in the Bay mouth, as described below. -"Inner Waters" which include all park waters inside Glacier Bay Proper, except perhaps for some at the Bay mouth. -"Wilderness Waters", which include the five areas established by ANILCA, possibly as modified by no-net-loss boundary adjustments. To this point, we have crafted a tentative agreement for the "outer waters" that in essence perpetuates established fisheries, subject to oversight by the Secretary and special management of species of concern. I think we are also close to agreement on the cessation of fishing in all wilderness waters, subject to phaseout in the Beardslee Islands and possible boundary adjustments. We have not reached agreement on fisheries management in "inner waters" outside of wilderness. The whole package depends on resloution of this issue. Several ways of dealing with inner waters have been put foreward. The NPS draft regulations center on complete phaseout. Another option is given in my marine reserve paper, which suggests a possible application of that concept. The fishers have presented a third, which is continuation of all fisheries outside wilderness waters. I present here a sketch of a fourth concept, evolved in response to the latest round of stakeholder meetings. This proposal envisions some combination of three major elements of a solution for inner waters: 1-the size and confuguration of the boundary; 2-which fisheries will continue; 3-how any discontinued fisheries will be phased out. SIZE of inner waters Considering the Bay mouth's bathymetry and park management objectives, four boundary alternatives seem reasonable to me; beginning with the most liberal, they are (see map): a -Pt. Gustavus to Pt. Carolus. (puts all of Glacier Bay in inner waters) b-Rush P. to Young Island to Beardslee Wilderness Boundary. (best bathymetric boundary) c-"S. Berg Pt." to Strawberry Island to Beardslee Wilderness Boundary (leaves all of Bay mouth in outer waters) d-"N. Berg Point" to S. Tip of Willoughby, putting the western Beardslees, but not Bartlett Cove, in outer waters. (leaves main Glacier Bay basin in inner waters; may involve modification of wilderness boundaries; leaves very significant amount of halibut and crab grounds in outer waters) FISHERIES in inner waters There are two main considerations here: which fisheries have least potential visitor impact, and which have least potential impact on resident park fish populations. On these bases, I would tentatively rank the major Glacier Bay fisheries as follows, beginning With the poorest rationale for closure: a -Winter king salmon trolling (off-season; transient fish population) b,c -Winter tanner crab pot and ringnetting; Fall Dungeness crab pot fishing (off-season; sub-populations in the Bay may be sufficiently distinct to allow some to be fished without significant effect on unfished ones) d -Spring & fall halibut longlining (off-season, but targets a top carnivore that may be substantially resident) e -Summer halibut longlining (during visitor season, and targets a top carnivore that may be substantially resident) f-Summer Dungeness crab pot fishing (during visitor season, and targets an abundant resident mid-level carnivore) g -King crab pot fishing (off-season, but targets small vulnerable resident populations) PHASEOUT of fisheries Assuming that certain fisheries will be terminated, four schedules have been recommended for this purpose. Beginning with the most stringent, these are: a-immediate termination with compensation b -7 to 15 year phaseout of present fishers; no new entrants c -lifetime grandfathering; no new entrants d -lifetime plus add'! generation grandfathering; no new entrants Each element (Size, Fisheries and Phaseout) may be relaxed or made stringent as a tradeoff against the other elements. For instance, if the fishers decided their priority was to maximize the continuation of fisheries, they might have to agree to rapid phaseout of certain fisheries, and to an inclusive definition of inner waters. On the other hand, should the Dep't of Interior want an essentially unfished reserve in the Bay, they might expect to accept a long phaseout period and an inner waters boundary well up-Bay. The Beardslees I understand discussions are going on between the crabbers and Interior on this. The above framework may have to be modified to accommodate whatever they come up with. ... IJ riff- _' -~O_jeL.._i_w_ll_.t _____ 8_,_~_.,._~ __ ,~_-'..::.,____· _1;,..-4 __ ~_~__;_· ______ _ Tn ~ v..-a-rJ J~ V ~~..r .. -..... t i ~ I Typical Southest Alaska Coho and Chinook Migratin Pattern Chinook Salmon are prized Only 34 natural chinook streams in SE (none in Park boundary) coho next most prized, 2500 streams, but a few in boundary (major Vessels power troller (limited entry since 1975 h)and troller (since 1980) Location of Distribution b L/vnL~ IJ:o kA } 2,j I (f; jq7 r::icense is good anywhere · n.SE -fish are highly migratory -- fishermen follow fish. ***get this map from Dave Gaudet (illustrates districts/park boundaries) EFFORT Separated by 114/116 (chart Jmpossible to se arate from in bay/out of bay. District 114 aveaged 489 permits frorm 1960 through 1997 District 66 averages 205 permits from 60-97 (power trollers account for about 90% of the catch, hand trollers about 10%) Harvest: District 116 \Chinook ranged from 11,000 in 1992 to 66,500 in 1969 Coho catch ranged from 3,000 Coho Management ( by board and dept) Objectives Achieve adeuate escapement by area Achieve athe escapement goaal ranges for the stocks that have them Provide maximum opp for barest Mgt. Plan Chinook ( governed by Treaty, ESA, BOF allocation -discount hatchery chinook, b/c they don't count against our treaty quota. ESA: Chinook Management Management Techniques Fishery Overflights Tallying Fish Tickets Port Salmpling catch rates coded wire tags (adipose fin is clipped off) Stock Assessment Program Coded wire tag sampling weir operations (wild streas for coho and chinook) Foot and aerial surveys Run reconstruction Escapement goal establishment. Coho Exploitation Rate Taku River Chinook Rebuilding Program, started in 1975. Escapements have been increasing throughout time. Chinook caught in and around GBNP are from GB Proper: A real mix of stocks: King salmon river, Behm canal, some Taku Local chinook stocks are healthy in SEAK. Joe Muir, Asst. Biologists~or Juneau Area: Salmon Net Fisheries No net fisheries in Bay itself 2 fisheries in park boundaries Purse Seine : excursion inlet Set net Excursion Inelt Seine Fishery 39 hour opening longest in recent history. AS we modified fishing area, harvest has been modified. Economics 10 year avg $215,000/year to shermen for all species Alsek & East River Set Net Alsek and East are part of the GB PRESERVE (not park) Alsek is a transboundary river: Canadian sport and subsistence fisheries take place in the upper drainage. Mgt is covered by TREATY, calls for coordinated mgt and assessment of this river. Several committees analyze stock assessment and harvest. The transboundary committee covers the drainage, and CTC covers chinook and how they have responded to the coast wide rebuilding ( Fishing Season To get proper perspective, need to paint historical picture of fishing in Icy Strait Board ofF isheries eliminated purse seining, had devastating effect on hoonah. Meg -Groundfish **Good map-stat-areas do not match Sablefish -most valuable groundfish the dept manages, Map of six management areas for groundfish (95% of catch is south of park) Since 19_95, very little sablefish landed in Park area, due to limited entry. Can't fish within 3 miles-sablefish like deep water anyway, and are not available within 3 miles. DSR -Demersal Shelf Rockfish Y elloweye rockfish (entry level fishery -small boats participate) 1997 -no directed SR fish€ry -no interest DSR Fishery management scientific team review, under direction ofNPFMC. ***general condition of rockfish stocks? Stocks are healthy-just did submersible survey work this summer. We are decreasing some of quota b/c there is not rocky habitat as we thought. Greg Streveler/Bart Koehler asking you to consider lines Ranking of fisheries: Least problematic -winter king salmon Most problematic -king crab fishery Pacific Cod heart of our reasoning -tradeoffs. Bart Koehler Not a SEACC position. One way to find middle ground solution. To try to generate some discussion -middle ground. trying to come up with some answers that would provide finality. Tried to leave a much of lower bay open as possible -b/c that's where halibut grounds are. Trying to push for fairness. Molly wanted to have: -something simple, that didn't drag on forever with phaseouts. -defensible. Which fisherjes would continue: -do not further restrict winter troll. -tanner crab fall dungeness fishery Size and configuration of bay ~ Alaska Wildlife Alliance: Opposed to fishing in entire park. Believe Court decision was to eliminate com'! fishing in wilderness waters, and leaving it up to NPS to determine whether com'l fishing in outer waters. ADD ALAN SMITH OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY TO THE MAILING LIST!!! Marine Reserves Paper: Jack's questions for Greg Jack Bart; don't think boundary of "3miles out" is a scientific boundary. We think that Glacier Bay proper was a boundary you could grasp. Paul, processor Bill, Friends of Glacier bay still espouses 10-15 r phaseout. Greg's paper provides some ... fee l that paper offers ... the idea of having elements on the wall that can be shifted, like the idea that we have pieces that we can move and get into formation. this strikes me as in line with what Molly said. Chip: hether its awa or nps, this has been a moving target. Reg's have changed. Positions TODAY are valuable to me today. Principles for the park for NPCA are: 1. that GB fulfil its role as 2. a meaningful laboratory for research 3. whatever is allowed, there is no physical alteratoin of the habitat. 4. wilderness values, including non-motorized visitor opportunities, is meaningfully in place. principles of reality: 1. we believe state managers should leave the table not hostile. 2. to the maximum extent, fishermen at the community level, should be treated fairly in terms of a legitimate rationale for what we do. 3. that biologists launch a cooperative 4. common language and a tool . . 5. actions, such as studies and closures, need to be set in motion . Response to proposal: Outer waters remain open, a cooperative conservation plan, a permanent sablefish closure lingcod closure identified closed area for dngeness studies (open ocean) closed to scallops and coho identification project Bay proper: remain closed lower bay open to halibut winter king open beardsley dungeness opening lower bay open coho trolling (w/wire tag id plan) Wilderness waters closed subject to review of fishing that can be allowed and equally improve wilderness values. Miscellaneous: closure of commercial concessione sport fishing and the continued opening of non-com'l sport fishing 15 year review stay in place, considering that populations are healthy any adjustments needed for research need or to protect resources coho in place in cooperation with run models ... Beardsley: perhaps beardsly and outer dungeness could continue? How do we ensure we have on board observers on every boat rockfish are sensistive, bycatch of halibut Chip: write something up? Yes. Observers? Cost -the vessel bears the cost. The board only imposes in case of real need. our safety issues o f placing our staff on rattle-trap boats. Rob: Washington DC trip bill wolfe ask that we still provide testimony in advance or at the hearing-Feb 26 ' . Sen. Stevens is cosponsor. are following issue closely. Meetings scheduled for 8-9 of January encouraging to continue stakeholder group. "our best strategy is to get as much consensus on as many issues as possible." Interior: no new surprises. recognition that we are all going to have to agree to a solution. unilateral decisions are not likely to succeed. Iflnterior or Murkowski's office proceed alone, there are vetoes/or riders. Possibility that Rep. Young will also introduce legislation. Need coalition building -better opportunities in House than in Senate. Rulemaking -recognition that there are different timelines. Keep together and **People are watching this process very closely. Judy -good progress. January 8-NPS sponsored meeting, information in nature, presenting information on different fisheries in the bay. Merge what the federal biologists know with what the state biologists know. Want to end that day k data, economics January 9 -state-sponsored meeting, consensus points. January 7 -afternoon, Hanson working with various biologists to merge differing information. Jan 8-9 at Centennial Hall 10 a.m. on the 8th 8:30a.m. on the 9th Deb: Steve Langdon's soscio-economic studies. Don't know if all of the information is availab le yet. FEb 3-4 Meetings ...,. Feb3-NPS Feb4-ADF&G -very important meetings ' . Deb: Money available for travel? $1 00,000 -60% has gone to Law. Some to Dave, some to studies, some for informational packets. Dave Gray -Request originally came from AT A. \ ...... II • • • • \ • • • • • • • -• • • - • • • • I • • • . .,. • \ • • -I • • • ·-II • • December 23, 1997 For Immediate Release PRESS RELEASE Glacier Bay Commercial Fishing Workshops Continue The National Park Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are sponsoring two public workshops in January to discuss commercial fishing issues in Glacier Bay National Park. The first workshop will be held in the Hickel Room at Centennial Hall in Juneau on January 8 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The second workshop is Friday, January 9, in the same location from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Thursday workshop will include discussion of data and management information regarding commercial fisheries occurring within the park, and ongoing and proposed research associated with commercial fishing activities. The Friday meeting will continue efforts to identify consensus points among the many interested parties. The first in this series of jointly-sponsored workshops was held in November. The NPS published a proposed rule on April 16 and is preparing an environmental assessment regarding commercial fishing within the park that is scheduled for release in late March 1998. Open houses and formal public hearings on the proposed rule and environmental assessment will be held in April or May in Alaska communities and Seattle before the May 15, 1998 public comment deadline. Notice of these hearings will be published in the Federal Register. Further information on the workshop is available from Randy King at Glacier Bay National Park, 697-2232, or from Diane Regan at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 465-6167. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO' N1619 December 15, 1997 Ms. ane Regan Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, Alaska 99826.{)140 AK Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau AK, 99811-5526 Dear Ms. Regan: The next round of t State of Alaska, National Park Service (NPS) and the rtment of Fish and Game (ADF&G), sponsored workshops for commercial fishing has set. The ckel Room in Centennial Hall, Juneau, has been reserved for January 8~ and 9th, 1998. The format will be the same as the November workshop. The January 8th meeting is sponsored by the National Park Service and facilitated by Dave Hanson, ARKTOS Associates. The meeting will in at 10:00 am to allow time for travel to Juneau and end at 5:00 pm. The Department of Fish and Game will sponsor and facilitate the meeting on January 9th. Rob Bosworth, ADF&G Deputy Commissioner, is the point of contact for this meeting. For those of you who did not attend the ADF&G workshop December 16 in Juneau, enclosed are the notes from the NPS Noveu~er 6, 1997 workshop. This document is a representation of meeting and not a verbatim transcript. If anyone feels t re are errors in this representation, ease feel free to contact the park at (907) 697 2230. S cerely, Superintendent AGENDA National Park Service Commercial Fisheries Workshop January 8, 1998 10:00 a.m.-5:30p.m. Centennial Hall, Hickel Room, Juneau Purpose of the Workshop: The purpose oftoday's workshop is to provide opportunity for public discussion and information exchange concerning commercial fishing issues within Glacier Bay National Park. The workshop will include information and discussion on marine protected areas and park commercial fisheries. 10:00: Workshop Overview and Introductions-Dave Hanson, facilitator 10:15: Overview ofNPS Rulemaking Process/Goals-Molly Ross, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Interior; Jim Brady, Superintendent 10:30-12:30: Marine Protected Areas Dr. Jim Bohnsack, Fisheries Research Ecologist, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS 12:30 1:30: lunch 1:30 -3:30: Fisheries Presentations ADFG/NPS/BRD 3:30-3:45: break 3:45-5:15: Questions/Discussion-facilitated panel discussion with biologists/fisheri1;s managers/ scientists. (Application and clarification of relative information and concepts on marine protected areas, fisheries management, and basic biology of species, research data, and harvest/effort data.) 5:15-5:30: Wrap-up/Summary/Schedule United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN :l.EPL Y ~EFER TO: N1619b January 26, 1998 Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve P.O. Box 140 Gustavus, Alaska 99826-0140 To participants and interested parties of the National Park Service (NPS) commercial fisheries workshops: Attached are notes from the last NPS workshop, on January 8, 1998, held in Juneau. These notes are general meeting notes not a formal meeting record. If you feel there is inaccurate information included or information needing to be inse~ted or deleted, p~ease contact Glacier Bay National Park for the changes needed. Due to a convention scheduled in Juneau the week of February 2~, the next NPS-sponsored workshop on February 3rct will be held in the Federal Building at 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Room 142A, beginning at 9:30 am and continuing to about 2:30pm. The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, will be hosting a Glacier Bay Working Group session beginning at 3:00pm on February 3rct, following formal adjournment of the NPS workshop. The State's session is scheduled to continue February 4th and 5th in the same meeting room. If you have questions or require information concerning the NPS workshop, please call Glacier Bay National Park at (907) 697-2230. Sincerely, Superintendent National Park Service Commercial Fisheries Workshop January 8, 1998 10:00 a.m. -5:30 p.m. Centennial Hall, Hickel Room, Juneau Workshop Overview and Introductions The workshop was called to order by Facilitator Dave Hanson at 10:10 a.m. He began by pointing out that this was a Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP) informational meeting regarding commercial fishing. The first day of the workshop was sponsored by the National Park Service and is intended to be an information base for tomorrow's parallel working group effort sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). second day is a State of Alaska sponsored working group meeting to work on concepts and building blocks for ac able solutions or regulation. In March, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed rule will be published followed by public meetings and hearings on the EA and Proposed Rule in April and early May. Then the final e will be publi d. The agenda proposes an educational look at the concept of marine protect areas. First, national expert, Dr. Jim Bohnsack from the National Marine Fisheries Service in Florida, will speak on marine reserves. Later we will hear about halibut use of Glacier Bay and related research from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IHPC) and the USGS-Biological Research vision (BRD) , Then we will hear about other species including salmon, Dungeness crab, tanner crab,et al. From ADF&G. The meet will conclude with a general discussion and panel questions regarding presentations and these data. Introductions were made around the room. (See the attached list at the end of this document.) Overview of NPS (National Park Service) Rulemaking Process/Goals Bob Barbee, ional Director of the Alaska Region, welcomed everyone and recognized that it was a diverse group. He hopes we will have a solution that all rties will feel OK about. Molly Ross, ecial Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior presented an overview of the rulemaking process and where things stand with the Department of the Interior. Recognized that this is a difficult issue for all. She was last here at the November workshop. She gave a brief ise of her comments. She has the duty to present to the local community the national perspective on National Parks and doesn't always jive with the local perspective on how they want to use the National Park. But, the local perspective is a factor in the ultimate decision, which she does NOT know what will be. So meetings are important for her. Rule-making decision: currently in the public comment period now, from last April through May 15. End of March the EA, then more public meetings on the information in that document. The NPS proposed rule is still the presumptive NPS position, must be until the final proposed rule. That rule envisions, ultimately, prohibition of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay mostly and legalization for first time in outer waters since 1966. Provides grandfathering, compensation etc. Also it envisions Glacier Bay as a protected area with national value. That's the vision it portrays. NPS's proposed rule was a compromise over the 1991 proposed rule that would have totally phased out commercial fishing in all waters in 7 years, period, both inner and outer waters. Law: from the national perspective the NPS is required to protect, preserve, and maintain for future generations. Also Glacier Bay has a special value as a benchmark, to learn all we don't know about marine ecosystems. That said, NPS is committed to treat people fairly. What much discussion is about is: what does that mean?? Up to Oct. 15, 95% of public comment (-400 letters) support NPS proposed decision or more restrictive. It's not a vote but it indicates public sentiment. Also science is pointing out need for areas that are protected to study. This Monday, "Troubled Waters", and 1600 marine scientists held a press conference, with a letter, saying oceans are in trouble. Jim Brady thanked all for continued willingness to work with us. He referred to the handout titled "Goals and Outcomes" to see where NPS wants to go and why. These are re sed as of January 1998. Dr. Jim Bohnsack works for NOAA at Southeast Fis ries S ence Center in Miami, FL. And, is also, adjunct culty 2 at the University of Mi , School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. He has thought about marine protected areas, written about them, published and done research on them, and helped to establish them. by quoting Al Leopold, who developed the Land c in Sand County c: "like winds and sunsets, wild were taken for granted ..... now we are faced with the question of whether a still higher standard of living is worth the toll ..... " He will talk about no-take reserves and marine ethics. Fishing is a very important activity. His job as a s ies scientist with NMFS NOAA is to promote fisheries. But it is also very rtant that we don't fish everywhere. We all agree on this on 1 We stop at oceans; it's not ous when the fish are gone. But we are learning. He has an advantage in warm water areas; he can see the fish gone, not everyone sees it. We can't protect bio-diversity if all areas are fished. He will ain later. What is no-take reserve? It protects stock by allowing a Traditional fisheries management: either size ts or effort limits. But these tend to fail over time. ial refuge does same, but in space. Can protect stock, even improve fi eries. Also protects bio-diversity. shermen should be interested in bio-diversity because that's what they harvest. Why marine reserves? Are being used more and more around the world. Started in tropics by accident for tourists. It's not to replace traditional management, but is an additional tool. It also is part of ecosystem management. This is different than typical fix-it n-broke More like airplane management: don't want afford it. This is ecosystem management, and mar reserves are a form of ecosystem t. Integrity, stability, and beauty of a system is ecosystem (from A. Leopold quote) That was part of land ethic, now, Jim nsack says we a marine ethic. of ethics: for example, first whales were hunted by s; now with cameras. This is a ch e of ethics, a nge with respect to our environment. is is what Bohnsack is talking about regarding ethics. A. Leopold, 3 Sierra Madre of Mexico, here he saw the land perfect, all he ever saw before was sick land. Bohnsack realized he has never seen a non-modified marine ecosystem. Fisheries around the world are indeed co lapsing. Most famous example: the east coast cod fishery. It was 500 years old, ta ng 800,000 tons ea year. It would "never end" they sa in 1989. It collapsed in '91. Commercial fishing is growing to make a li ng. Also sport harvest is increasing. Tourism is important; the aesthetic fishery. Problem is crowding and conflicting uses, all in same area. Reserves are one way to avoid these conflicts and zone use. However, Alaska does not yet have the lem of population density of ople. But the problem with humans is that t are smart. They can catch fish faster than fish can reproduce. Examples of fish collapsing: Bermuda -Groupers, the largest fish, the largest i viduals have all crashed. Vi Islands '50's photo of one man's catch, versus today. You cannot catch the same fish anymore. Headboat fishery in Southeast United States -the average size from 1972-1986 is decreasing over all species; this is not healthy. Fisheries have problems around the world. And just because you don't have a problem now, doesn't mean it's not coming. More es: Red Snapper ckly fell from 16 million pounds to 5, and collapsed because of by-catch from shrimp trawls; so catch can a problem. Fish life cycles. Eggs released into water, dispersed in water, very low survival of larvae, then relatively sedenta adults, so recruitment is very chancy. Way around this: live long and so reproduce many times. We must let them reproduce many times in fishery management. This is the typical fish life cycle. Live long, because of recruitment uncertainty. Also many species change sex at size, if too smal then not enough males or females. These fish are large, aggressive and thus not shy of humans, cu ous, do not naturally fear humans, also are p ctable in space and time for e.g. spawning, in short t fishermen can do lots of damage. Also rtant: young fish use most food for growth but later larger fi use most energy to reproduce, y are factories so fish managers must make sure large fish survive. Very big problem. 4 What is overfishing? Different types: size overfishing and growth overfishing. Fishing goes for biggest so causes recruitment failure, or it fishes them too young and not growing to a larger size. Genetic overfishing: smaller ones, least desirable, are the ones surviving and reproducing. Also there is behavioral overfishing: ones not behaving normally are ones that are selected for. This can, over time, turn lingcod into wrasse and lobster to a shrimp: they stop growing~" below legal size limit. Ecosystem overfishing: having to do with relationships between species, e.g. sea otters with kelp and sea urchins. Models are difficult, might be wrong, even if right data is used they might be wrong. We also have lots of species. And the warm cuddly syndrome. Fish aren't usually targets for conservation. Examples of Fishery management options: Catch quotas Seasonal closure Size limits: but often not work because of handling damage Trip limits: get bigger boats Hatcheries: obvious problems Permanent reserve: simple and in tune with the ecology of the spp. Four benefits: more larvae; also adults wander out or move out = export biomass; genetic protection of wild type genes, they aren't selected against (be large, grow slow, be stupid) -only management option to do that; insurance policy if make mistakes in fishery ground: have a stock to rebuild faster. Also it's win-win inside the reserve: can do research inside, on behavior, interactions w/other species, natural mortality; also tourism, education, cultural resources, spiritual connections. Win-win, fisheries, environment, and conservationists all win. Major benefits (huge list, only a few here): Protect ecosystem structure, function, & integrity; improve yields; non-consumptive opportunities, improve research and education etc. Certain criteria need to be met to be recognized as a reserve like he is talking about: no take (at all) inside, it's replicated, and represents all habitats. How big? Fairly large: 20% of the waters: where got that 20%? Models show should be able to maintain the stock. If only 20% survive, need 5X normal survival, below that is 5 unrealistic and cannot sustain itself. Have proposed 20% to South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Thought crazy at the time but there's more impetus now. In ocean since dispersal is not a problem (dispersal is through the water, not equivalent to terrestrial dispersal), reserves should have much better chances in the ocean. 19 marine reserves established in last year in Flori Keys in last year. Reserves seem to work. Fishermen will fish the edges. Also a few studies: Apo Is. and Cape Kennedy in Florida. show that size of fish inside are larger, and also are larger on the outside, the latter was shown at Apo, and at Kennedy many of the wo records are taken just outside the reserve. Marine reserves are our insurance, fi rmen understand about insurance: check weather, float ans, cont cy plans etc. No-ta marine reserves are our insurance. History of land vs. marine ethic (a t line of changes in ethics and landmark acts of conservation in terrestrial vs. marine environments). We are see a change of ethics. (Jim Bohnsack's talk ends at 11:45) Questions: Tory O'Connell of ADF&G Q: Marine reserves should no- take zones, vs. Molly Ross saying it's a reserve, yet NPS proposal allows sport & charter fishing, sport & charter are significant ta s-? Yes, Jim Bohnsack means no take though obviously there are different levels and that's Glacier Bay's and the people here's cision, but even "insignificant" takes may turn out to be very important. Jev Schelton Q: You said the most important thing is the control, I hope you mean that the important thing is that the control is ropriate, control can't just be anything. Also: how choose sites: ication, include all habitats, what else? Answer: Should have size; biological integrity; also will the land access will be highly modified?; they wanted private property not adjacent so public owned was important; s le boundaries; proximity to users; proximity to compliance monitoring & enforcement; proximity to shing grounds; existing restrictions; total harvest protection; recruitment and dispersal patterns. Avoid: high use areas; areas with pollution and sedimentation; ghly urbaniz areas. Magnusson Act Considerations: Fairness and ity; promote conservation; 6 excessive shares; consistency with fishery management plans; impacts on traditional uses; promote orderly use of the resource; optimize biological production. Q: Entire life cycle need to be protected? Answer: not necessarily, don't necessarily need to protect larvae. But what if it's a migratory spp, doesn't spawn t re? Al Morin Q: looks li so far in Florida reserves are not deep water, were larger sh like cruise ships allowed, traffic lanes: effects on larvae? Answer: Any vessel over 350' have to stay outside. Concern was ground of the sh Do have channel for tourist ship in Key West. Bigger research vessels have to have permits. Also the reserve boundaries do stop at 60 feet , at reef line, yes which is ~ problem though includes all shallow habitat t s. Lots of history says there's no support at inning, then later it's s ed. Also public doesn't ac compromises to allow some fishermen in while the rest are prevented. Goal is NOT no human effect, we are instead trying to min ze it. Q: spp are in the water column as larvae, do you allow vessels through water column, do they harm larvae? Answer: Probably harm is infinitesimal: it's so small with millions of eggs. These reserves are for le, so allow them in to appreciate and use it. Jim Taggart Q: what's relationship between essential fish habitat (in re-authorized Magnusson Act) and marine reserves? Answer: Trying to determine now what is critical habitat. Habitat is important and we are starting to rec ze that. Sometimes reserves are the only way to know what habitat is like, how trawling for example is affecting the habitat. Q: FLA has many people, here r, and here s of appropriate habitat: so is Glacier Bay the appropriate location? There are other aces like outer coast, Bering Sea ? Answer: Yes, should have all habitats represented and Glacier would be only a start. But does have the land adjacent protected, that's good. But should indeed include lf habitat. Ottie Florschultz Q: the Atlantic C 1 proposal for 20% rna ne reserves, all had 3 sides accessible. acier Bay is a fjord with a small mouth only. So access ility not true for Glacier Bay and would have to throw it out if choose 7 Glacier Bay. Would still be effect have to see. ? Answer: maybe, Q: a failed marine reserve you mentioned: trawling allowed so iled, also in NZ: did it fail due to lack of public acceptance? Answer: La ly yes but some people used it as excuse to poach. Was hard to do research there at 240' depth, and trawling was destroyi it. Q from troller of winter ki & outer coast: it's a large area. Most examples you are on rockfish or reef fish, but here we are talking about banning trolling around coast and in Bay. So seems your work is not appli le: salmon only live 3 4 years., pass through and going elsewhere. Also, regarding marine reserves: how are y formed, ss, who forms it? Answer: if troll for something truly migratory, does it rm ecosystem? Purely transient species can be important, part of natural process, he doesn't know here. Also: he'd ask: could you catch them ins outside this zone, ng in or out? Regarding how created: different ways. Florida Keys: Act of Congress, one of few ground-up issues. State & feds got involved. Others done by Caribbean Council who have authority. Atlantic Council now considering expanding all over. Gulf Council also considering. Q: Alaska 40 years of state management and track record is very healthy. Salmon are in good s here. Answer: Yes, Alaska has good reputation for many fisheries, but look at Grand Banks, 800 thousand tons/year and they were caught by surprise. That may have been a case of an unofficial reserve there, there was water not loited till recently and t's when it crashed. Q: Crowding effect: Answer: so few big areas are protected that this has not been studied yet. Amount of fish produced far outweighs the crowding effect: better off with closed area than with size limit, and your by-catch is less because no size limit, so in handli , don't have handling damage. Dale Kelly as Bohnsack to reconsi r his example of Georges Banks, which fai for a number of reasons: pirate fisheries, no management an, even ronmental. Reasons, so many of these not licable to Alaska. Here with salmon we are above 20 and other species have very good plans. This is different. We want to know real goals and 8 objectives of a reserve. Answer: a reserve is not to replace other management strate es, it is also, it's a different way of ng some of fish management. Yes to your points but re are lots of other examples of failures. Point is: we don't know, so protect, and don't know till protect it. Dale Kelly: that's scary with peoplE dependent on the fishery when you say you don't know what will happen. Bill Q: same as Dale Kelly: as Alaskan fis rmen we think we are smart enough not to take everything that's there. Most of your points seem not to apply to acier Bay to him. Did you say this is best to apply in mode of correcting a problem? Answer: No, should be done on principle. Also: did you say: appropriate from point of view of science that there a demonstration that any activity does not have an effect? Answer: regarding Alaska manages well: ok, this is not a replacement, they are compatible approaches. There can be local etion. Also, with traditional management can get genetic overfishing: removing smaller sizes, certain behaviors. Regarding proving that salmon fishing does not have an effect: is what you are doing affecting the natural balance? Yes, if you have a natural area, the onus should be on proving no effect, that's his ion. Q: 40-yr. track record of increasing health of stocks in Alaska, why would we want to go back? Answer: 40 years is not a long time. Also note that the most healthy stocks back East are in Menhaden, where 40% of the area is no fishing, for tourists, and that stock is doing great. Q from Joe Emerson fisherman in Glacier born in Bermuda. Feels Alaska is different. Thinks should establish marine reserves first where established problem rather than where none shown. More important in areas with problems. Answer: I hear you saying: "We should wait to see smoke before bu ng insurance" No: I'm sa ng "Don't throw water on a house t 's not burning" Bohnsack: but don't know ahead of time which will burn. So you don't know where to buy insurance. Do you only want marine reserves only where t fish have crashed? Jim Bohnsack feels essentially saying: good idea, but do it may be like fencing 'shearing a number of pe NIMBY (Not In My Back Ya somewhere else. Also: le : yes it's a thinks it range: out west now there are 9 boundaries, fencing all areas, no longer wilderness, this attacks very essence of fishermen: saying it's civilized, like moving from hunting to farming. Ron Q: some cooperation. create biol doesn't fit about. And solves. He cases marine reserves have been established in Problem: boundaries: this doesn't necessarily cally integral boundaries. Q: Glacier Bay ecol cal integrity that you are talking false boundaries may create more problems than thinks not. Molly Ross Q: you've been through the wars. Parks usually try to protect whole ecosystems . Marine reserves are an essential tool to preserve ecosystem, so far not done a great job, probably because we did not know better, now we do. But Molly: what about species interactions? Questions beyond fish themselves. Answer: Aldo Leopold: Biotic system is like a clock. To preserve the system need to save all parts. Dale Kelly: I do not want you to think Alaska fishermen fear corralling of the West, we already have off-1 ts no-fish areas and no specific gear types. Alaska has hi y regulated fisheries, we are not afraid of regulation. Answer: Yes, understands that. But back East also ti ly regulated, no trap zones etc., but often find are overfished when we think not. Ch Dennerlein Q: regarding science, but AK is different. From scientific perspective he'd like to see the statement "But AK is different" addressed. Salmon do move around, but we have crab that don't, let's say what we mean that "Alaska is different". Are we so different that there's no value to no-take reserves, in order to see our ecosystem in context? BREAK FOR LUNCH at 12:40, to reconvene at 13:40. Fisheries Presentations ADF&G/NPS/BRD Reconvene actually at -14:00. Halibut presentations: Bob Trumble, senior scientist at IPHC and Phil Hooge with Glacier Bay eld Station USGS- BRD Bob Trumble: background on how halibut are managed. Start with basic biology. Flatfish. Adults spawn on outer 10 continental shelf, the flat part to deep part, spawn, embryos float, drift and rise g lly, 6 months later take on flat shape and settle to bottom hundreds or even thous of miles from spawning: move lots! Summer feeding is throughout coastal and outer shelf Alaska = where caught (i.e. they are caught on their summer feeding grounds). ing is fewer areas, spottily in Gulf of Alaska. No harvest allowed at this time. s and embryos drift N&W generally. In juvenile age, 2 8 years, they now migrate counter to general way of drift, now migrate roughly S&E, back from the areas of metamorphosis, to as far south as WA and OR. Move long stances to counter egg and larval drift to general area/ rection of original spawning. Equal opportunity for halibut to mix largely, breaks down genetic specialization. Hal harvest is exclusively hook and-line. -lines with gangions with hooks. For IPHC research: measure length & take otolith for age, take sex, do tagging with coded astic wire tags inserted into opercular cover of fish, averaging 10 tag returns from fishermen. How to set s and manage fisheries. Get catch from fish tickets from dealers; get CPUE (catch per unit effort) from fishermen; mar samples: age composition, 1 & weight at age; research su for CPUE, age composition and 1 at age, wt. at age; NMFS observers: observer data, by-catch mortality. Calculate out: Choose 20% of oitable biomass as target, first subtract sport, wastage, by-catch and personal us.e amounts. Commercial fish the rest, bottom of the list, lowest priori May be majority, down to only 1/3rct of the 20% est e, depe ng on location. Regulatory areas: Glacier Bay is in 2C, Southeast AK. Areas are set up so overall harvest is taken in proportion to the amount of biomass avail e in each area. We are concerned about local depletion, but on a large scale -and so we force fishermen to move farther away. Still, in smaller areas like Homer, Kodiak, Sitka Sound, Glacier areas are much smaller scale than our statistical areas. We know there ARE local depletion problems: in Sit and in British Columbia for instance. When quotas are set, it is based on overall biology of the species. Health may be excellent overall but ity locally might be very small. That's not a RESOURCE issue for IPHS, that's an allocation issue. IPHC is for overall management, they are to stay ll away from small-scale allocation, per the treaty that formed IPHC between U.S. & Canada The U.S. and Canada can take additional actions that are more restrictive than IPHC cannot conflict with IPHC regulations. Quantities: catches from '93 '97, declining trend, then a jump in '97: scovered some new ological information ant incorporated that into their ls, and scovered t the exploitable biomass was much higher than previously thought, t refore the quotas were increased. 2C: declining, jump to 10 million lb. in 97. Recommendation: 12 million lb. for '98 in Jan. at ssioners' meeting. Now halibut is in excellent condition overall, in numbers and health, record numbers of catch. Philip Hooge: ecological studies and commercial harvest. Data pre-IFQ (individual fishing quotas) in the de style fishery, taken from planes and boats l ng for skate locations. 1992: approximately 100 s. 1993 mostly lower Bay, ~so boats. 1994: ~65-70 Halibut effort mostly '92-'94 in lower Bay and mouth of Dundas Bay. Thinks this data is very inclusive: lots of effort put into the surveys. Started wire tagging in 1992. IPHC sub-statistical unit 184 just Glacier Bay interior waters. Harvest levels in pounds in Glacier Bay from processors was reported. Glacier Bay is smaller amount than Icy Strait or outer coast areas. These data show stable takes including 1996. Number of vessels reported fishing in Glacier Bay also stable. (these are contra to data shown later) Will talk about movement data; one aspect of habitat selection: ronose e; and some other ecological relationships. One important thing about Glacier Bay: it's unique, ord estuarine, broad range of oceanographic conditions, topographically diverse. Some very deep: 100 fathom water, up to shallow sills. Some of this may be very different from what halibut are doi on outer continental shelf. Size o halibut home r greatly affects their ecol and any reserve size potentially. Sonic tags were put on 105 halibut, first external, now internal. A couple km range for aring em, maybe up to 1 2 nm. Use hydrophone 12 on vessel to track them. Unique ID for each fish, can localize fish very closely. Have very smal home ranges, especially larger halibut. One e.g.: less than~ a sq. km. Different sizes of home ranges. Draw lines around all points used. But actual area used is even smaller t if you draw a line around all the points. 95% of the time, ir t s one e.g., the fish was using an area 1/10th of a sq. km. The home ranges often abut but do not overlap. Sometimes we saw shifts in home ranges right after derby- style openings. One individual example: near mouth of Berg Bay during salmon run, shifted after salmon stopped to a broader area. Smaller fish have larger home ranges and vice versa. Overall, three different movement patterns seen: 1) Hardly move at all, very small range. 2) Small home range and occasionally break out and move around; then sedentary again. 3) Tend to be smaller animals: move from hot spot to hot spot. Between-yr. site fidelity. 1992: 6 halibut tagged with longer-life tags; next year f of them back within 1 km. After all data (involves a larger number of multi-year tags): find ~50 return one year, ~25% return two years, ~ 12% three years. (i.e. about half ret urn each year) . We know there's ~25% mortality from returned tags. Other 25 ?: don't know. 15% over winter in Glacier Bay- interesting: spawn there possibly? Wire tag returns: 85% of the returns from -1600 wire-tagged halibut tagged in Glacier were retrieved in Gla r , 10% in Icy Strait, 5% elsewhere. That 85% increases to 93 returns if only look at those fish tagged in the upper mid-Bay. Another piece of evidence that halibut are staying put: Age frequency distribution is a nice bell curve in Area 2C overall, but in a smaller area like Glacier Bay there is distinctive age structuring which is maintained even though not over larger area (so aren't moving much) . Chronosequence study: long-lines set up and down Glacier Bay: Halibut density caught: high numbers in lower and d Then gradual decline up West Arm -looking like a straight effect of time since aciation. But in East Arm, numbers went up and down. Believes oceanographic parameters affect it: sedimentation, not just time since deglaciation. West arm is lowest density overall. East arm has some areas of higher density. 13 Two patterns: Site fidelity w/small home ranges, these are larger individuals, and spatial density was homogeneous. Different than longlining data, which show: more spatial homogeneity. Hypothesize: Sit and Wait predators: larger fish, small home ranges, low spatial heterogeneity, foraging specialization on larger fish. Vs: Active search foraging: less fidelity, larger home ranges, smaller ind duals, high e neity, broa r eating: whatever they can find including shellfish. In 1996 we got double the wire tags of any previous years, when should be declining since it's been longer since we put on most of the tags. Previous estimate: around 20 harvest, first year of I 1995 got , then doubled in 1996. Looks like the effort under the IFQ system is increas in Glacier Bay, although the reports don't say so. Novel results of Glacier Bay work: ontogenetic diet shifts; limited home ranges; inter-and intra-year site fidelity; e feet of oceanographic conditions on distribution of adults; and ???? (missed the rest). Management implications: Small home ranges and site fidelity: Potential for local depletion. Increased possibility of zonal management having an effect. Assumptions of halibut management models may be violated. Dichotomy in Behavior: "Behavioral refugium" -if are not fo ng right now, then don't t caught on the 1 ines. stions from audience for both Bob Trumble and Philip Hooge. Q from Al Morin to Philip Hooge: how many of the wire tags did you get back? Answer: of -1600 put out, -10% were returned to the IPHC. Of this 10%, 85% were caught within the Bay, 10% in Icy Strait, 5 elsewhere. Q from Al: So what happened to the other 90% of the t s that weren't retrieved -is it possible that they all left and were never caught, that's why you didn't catch them because they left? So in other words 90% of the fish leave? rather than 85 have these small home ranges and stick around for years? Answer: No, that's not very likely ... extended discussion of what conclusions we can draw .... Al: but you are target the fish t have stayed by tr ng to recapture them only in Glacier Bay ... Answer: we aren't targeting anything, and these data aren't from our 14 recaptures but rather from e IPHC from fishermen all over who return the tags .... IPHC's Bob Trumble says that ir statisticians would have to examine ta before vouching for it, but in general since there is much more effort in Icy Strait and on outer coast than in Glacier Bay that you'd expect more of t tags to ve en picked up by fishermen out there if the halibut were in moving out there, and the fact that they haven't lends credence to se data ... Bob Trumble says yes y ( IPHC) have caught fish again right on same spot orig lly captured, and majority are within 50 miles of original capture. Q from Ottie: which way was the discrepancy in years: Answer from Philip Hooge: some years we saw 96 boats in acier Bay but only 45 were at the fish buyer. Second question: spike in '96 catch was based on wire tag data, is that how IPHC estimates biomass? Answer from Bob Trumble: No, use other data to get biomass estimates. Q: re: Sonic tags: could the tag have been eaten and you're following another fish? Yes, but seems unlikely since halibut are top predators (also the tag would pass through the digestive system); we labelled a tag as dead because it stopped moving around (or a very few, 1 or 2, were returned to us, they are very fficult to see when cleaning the fish and usually get scarded with the guts) Q from Jev : seems like a big stretch to jump from small home ranges to probabilities of local depletion. Answer: Philip stands by the statement that small home range increases the sus ibility to local depletion. Jev: that's not what commercial fishermen find. Philip: tell that to Sitka, where even commercial fishermen say it IS happening. Jev: but at beginning of each year 're back .... Phil : no, they aren't: ask Sitka's commercial fishermen. Dave Hanson intervenes. Q: How long did you follow each sonic-tagged fish? Answer from Phil : depends on length of battery: some 13 months, others 3 years. Q from Chip Dennerlein NPCA: North Pacific Fis ry Management Council is about to take up local depletion big time. IPHC will advise but local data not very good so not so confi Chip: "the resource is OK" means that just that stock is OK, right, not the ecosystem for instance? What is the resource question the IHPC s: has to with 15 just the stock of the species in question, right? Answer from Bob Trumble: right, we are solely concerned with halibut stock. Q from Jev : to IPHC: do you have any reason to th k spawning can happen in Glacier Bay? Answer from Bob Trumble: no reason not to think it, but we've never tested it. Could be happening, but probably isn't important over the whole coast spawning population, though might be very important locally. Now the State will present data, biologists, starting with: several ADF&G Scott Marshall, ADF&G. Intro: History and vision of AOF&G. In Southeast AK, 40% of private sector income comes from fishing. Great dependence of locals on the resource, including for subsistence. Early history in 1800's was controlled from San Francisco, and management was non existent. Salmon catch in 1920's '30's peaked, then hards years after state management in '50's till '70s, now catches hi r than ever. Alaska constitution's mandate: fishery resources SHALL be: developed, maintained, utilized. Based on the sustained yield principle. Who catches is subject to preferential uses. Legislature's vision: Citizen Board to set policy, rment to lement daily management. Created local sory committees to the Board and Department Protected salmon habitat. Created Commission. Alaska Fisheries Board --writes all tions; 7 members appointed by Governor, no pay, open public process, proposals from public and rtment and act on each proposal. 3 ar rotation. May allocate use, but must use specific c teria. Advisory committees, throughout Southeast Alaska, develop proposals for the Board, review and se the Board on received als. AOF&G has Commissioner: 5-yr term, selected by Governor from Board list. Manage, ct the resource in erest of economy and well-being o State. May open or close seasons or area, search seize and arrest, and to delegate down line of authority. 16 Area and regional management: professional biologists: de egated management authority and responsibility. Not subject to Administrative Procedures Act. Neutral on alloca on issues. Live in local communities. Strong conservation ethic daily ication of precautionary princ e. Rely on science as professional biologist. Much local knowledge. Get public trust: good communication, judgment, commitment, communicate. Sustained yield, constitutional mandate: process res conservation mandate, science to establish production potential, a public process to estab ish a target. As a an, sustained yield is the consc s application of management principles to achieve specific result. Result: long-term harvest in the face of environmental uncertainty. Regional management program: management program for each species has own history, affected by many factors. Cooperative management: priorities: identifi le conservation concerns; relax management to better approach maximum sustained eld; to lop needed tech; to address political or cultural etc. issues; general scientific interest. Opportunities for cooperative management and stock assessment: Funding is critical. Fine scale harvest and effort: via logbooks, fishery overfli s and patrols, sk r interviews. Also habitat inventory and assessment. Bathymetric mapping, substrate ng, physical and chemical oceanogr ic research and monitor Also population biology: distribution and abundance, life history and productivity. Also community ecology: interspecies interactions (e.g. sea otters inverts-kelp) . In-active fisheries in acier Bay proper: shrimp; herring; clams (hard shell); dive fisheries: sea cucumbers, sea urchins, geoduck clams; salmon various. Statistical areas: confusing. 16 or 116 = outer coast areas, including more than just Park waters; 14/114 is Icy Strait region (including Glacier Bay and other waters not part of the Park), and Glacier Bay pr r has at least one big subdistrict 114. So getting pre se data can be very hard. Groundfish have different statistical areas. Often we areas to get more accurate data. 17 Commercial salmon seine fisheries: none in Glacier Bay proper, only Excursion Inlet: fall chum salmon, mid-Aug. tc early Oct. ( st in 7 of the last 9 years). Goal: in- season run strength assessment to achieve adequate escapement. Very variable in time, are short in duration, 9-15 total. Recent catches lower because in 1985 moved boundary up so not catching fall chums for Lynn Canal and Taku River. Now mostly all Excursion Inlet fish. Dave Gaudett: Salmon troll fishery: See handouts. Vessels and gear. I will emphasize both Chinook and Coho, though other species are caught by troll. In Park, two others also: in the experimental fisheries the pink and chum can be targeted. Vessels: power and hand trollers. Gear: 4 power gurdies, 2 hand gurdies, or 4 fishing poles. Terminal gear: hoochies, plugs, herr Gear is off the bottom. Very little bycatch. Both types of gear are limited entry. Management and stock assessment: manage populations on biologically-based escapement goals. Use: coded wire tags; weir operations; foot and aerial surveys; overflights in summer but not winter or spring. Port sampling for catch rates, confi ntial. Fish tickets. Feedback from area management biologist and fishermen themselves. Coho salmon: second least numerous in Alaska; use all sizes of streams. ~2500 streams in Southeast Alaska, majority are small with several to 100 fish. There are several populations in Glacier Bay, and troll fishery does do mixed stock fishing on them. Coho: fish mostly for them as they enter Cross Sound/Icy Strait, some fishing in Glacier Bay but not much. Coho management: want escapement adequate, provide maximum harvest opportunity. Can't retain any Coho till June 15. ADF&G assesses in late July, assesses again in st, can close either time. They manage for numerical escapement ranges, typically exploitation rate 60 80% while achie the goals. Based on Berner's River data, 17 of Glacier Bay proper fish are exploited on the outer coast fore Cross Sound. Chinook. Largest, least numerous, only 34 ~ive~s in Southeast Alaska: large rivers , no document spawning populations in Glacier Bay. Migrate long stance: caught as far as from O~e Stock composition: 1985 '96: Canada 18 50 , 30% southern U.S., rest are Alaska stocks. Chinook management objectives: achieve Pacific Salmon treaty quota; maximize harvest of Alaska hatchery Chinook; continue the Southeast Alaska and coastwide rebuilding program; achieve allocation from Board of Fis ries; ze incidental mortality of Chinook; comply with the conditions of the ESA. (Endangered ies Act) incidental take permit. Chinook: present r-round in Southeast Alaska, begin count program in Oct.: Oct. 11 thru il 14 or till 45,000 caught: that's winter quota. ring: target on hatchery early May thr June 30. Summer fis ry: starts July 1 and harvests 70% of the remaining quota. CPUE data from summer opening is used to termine final abundance. Fall ing targets the rest of the quota. Glacier Bay and Icy Strait summer Chinook fishing is mainly outside Icy Strait and Outer Coast area. Bay because we know so few there. catches in Icy Strait and Glacier due to reduction of handtrolling. and catches stable. troll fisheries. Summer of Glacier Bay proper in We don't fly over Glacier Number of permits and Bay have dropped mostly Outer coast: rmits Glacier Bay and Icy Strait: winter troll fishery: none on outside. Not poss e to separate Icy Strait from Glacier catches. 60 146 permits have made a landing since 1981. Chinook catch #: 1,400-18,000. CWT sampling data shows that a high % of Chinook are from Alaska hatcheries (from port sampling questions). Glacier Bay and I Strait 16% of Sout ast Alaska winter troll fishery comes from this area (Icy Strait and Glacier Bay), so is important. Tim: Dungeness Crab: gear (divers not si ficant). gillnetters, fast skiffs. is s and ringnets and divers Vessels: limit seiners, large Dungeness Crab fishing locations: mostly Beardslees and Berg Bay and Dundas, also Gustavus Flats and Excursion Inlet. 21 permits '96-'97; 38 average over 10 years acier Bay proper only: 12 in '96-'97, same (12) r 10-yr average. 3.3 million # harvest from all Southeast Alaska waters (average over last 10 years). 218,000 average from Gla er Bay r = 7% of Southeast aska total. 6 from all Icy Strait, 7% from all Outer Coast. 19 Management: Superexclusive vessel registration (can only fish in one area each year). Limited entry program (308 pot permits). Gear limits: tiered pot system {maximum 300 per vessel). Unl ted number of ringnets (only 8 permits for ringnets) Seasons: summer: June 15-August 15; fall : Oct. 1-Nov. 30. Male only harvest, minimum legal size 6.5 inches so they can reproduce for a few years before capturable. In- season management: Fishery overflights to record effort distribution; harvest record verification. Fish tix; industry reports; port sampling: size structure, shell condition, average weight. Stock assessment: historic fisheries data = harvest data & stock structure {sizes & recruitment). Pre-season survey (new: Stikine area only): Shell condition (soft vs. hard), catch per pot, stock structure. Economic value: Southeast Alaska: $7 million; Glacier Bay: $400,000 dollars 6%, Icy Straight = 6 ; Icy Strait: 11 . Looks like outer coast is decreasing, almost doesn't exist; has been bad for last 4-5 years. Q from Chad Soiseth: Q regarding handling damage and also ng rumor of altering season because of soft crabs' being damaged during summer. Answer: Yes, but complicated because there are many small boats, bad for fall weather; also ice over the grounds so the grounds come inaccessible due to ice on top. Also, they are mating in 11 so looking at late fall into winter. So will very complex to alter this: need to make other concessions. Naomi Sundberg comment: if we find soft crab we move elsewhere because we can't sell and they weigh more if hard. So we have economic incentive plus interest in keeping the fishery healthy. Deb Woodruff: I remember we had a 6-week closure middle of summer season, to protect crabs while molting. We are very sensitive to weight of crab. Can't use if have no legs, our buyer is very picky: we probably return more crabs in Bay than others. Doug Whidbey: Tanner crab: Fishing locations: central Bay is ac ng to their data and NPS says also up-Bay and 20 Beardslees (not major). Also fish for Tanner out in Icy Strait. Note that statistical areas do not correspond with Park boundaries. Vessel types: limit seiners, gillnetters, tenders. Gear: pots mostly, few ringnets. Harvest: 192,000 # average from Glacier Bay, 10% of SE total by 4 30 permits. (average from last 10 yrs.' data). 1.9 llion lb. total average SE AK. Icy Strait 15%, by 10-25 of the permits. Outer coast 1%, only to Fairweather. Of the Glacier Bay numbers, well over half comes from t central part of the Bay. Regulations: superexclusive vessel registration. Limited entry: 97 permits: Gear limits: 80 pots/vesel, 20 rings/vessel. Male only, 5.5 in. minimum size. Maximum harvest: 2 million #. Logbooks required, season begins Feb.l5 winter fis ry. Now usually open less than 10 days per year. Goal of management: sustained rvest of <60% of legal males. Do preseason assessment. CPUE model to est te pop. size, catch rate analysis to set fishing days, survey piloted in 97. In season management (Feb.): Fish tickets -harvest; fish 1 ks; overflights; and?? (missed it) Stock assessment survey: preseason survey, pilot study in 1997: catch per pot; stock structure: recruitment, legal males, fema s, future recruitment. Pilot was done out Pleasant Island, south of it. Economic value: Glacier Bay proper: $0.4 mil 10%, Icy Strait: $0.6 mil. (15 ) outer coast is confidential. Dan Foley Q: can you get ring data separated out by tomorrow because he thinks the local effort using ringnets is much greater for this local community than in other areas in SE AK. Yes, ADF&G will try to bring t tomorrow. Ottie Q: if lose fishing) would t reduced by t shery we would (if Bay were closed to Tanner 2 million lb. quota stay same or would percentage? Answer: for conservative have to reduce the quota by that amount. Al Q: is a Tanner crab fis rman in Glacier Bay: 10 is not accurate because last few years a higher of Tanner crab s come out of t Glacier Bay/Icy Strait area, recently is higher than the 10-year average. If we lose Glacier Bay 21 proper, would displace ~20 boats out of Bay to fish other areas where other pe le are already fishing. The number of boats now is like 60% of the all boats in Glacier and Icy Strait now. ADF&G re e: yes this could be true. Tim: King crab, shrimp and scallops: King crab: pots only, a winter fishery, red fished. 1500 lb. average from Gl er Bay boats. & blue king are < 1%, by 2 4 Shrimp: Glacier Bay closed early '80's for ESA humpback whales. acent waters: pot shr : Oct. 1 Feb. 28. Otter and beam trawls: closure effective in 1994. Pot shrimp harvest and effort: 612,000# from all SE AK waters, average over last 10 years 1,700# from Icy Strait by 1-6 ts, 4,600# from outer coast (mostly at Lituya Bay) by 1- 12 permittees, both of these are <1 total from Southeast Alaska. Weathervane Scallop. Season: July 1-Feb. 15 or till as met. Gear: very specific (lots of investment by fishermen into speci ized equipment): scallop dredge = made of rings like chain mail. Manage jointly with North Pacific Fishery Mana Council. Locations: both in and out of the Park waters and out the coast, on either side of Lituya Bay. Maximum 10 vessels in the state. Average 3 permits fished in statistical area 16 per year. Scallop harvest: Plan allows 35,000 lb. quota from outside coast south of Cape Fairwea r (<1% of state quota). Average of 25% of this 35,000# is taken within the 3nm boundary. Scallop stock assessment: historic fishe ta & observer data. All vessels are ired to ve an observer on board: record size/age, detailed harvest rate, detailed locations. In future: use new data, also will do dredge ct study. Chad Soiseth Q: likely for shrimp fishery in outer coast and Icy Strait to increase?· Answer: Markets are very good right now. So the mar is there. Tory O'Connel: Groundfish: Pacific cod longline, lingcod dinglebar, sablefish longline, demersal s lf rockfish not so much t t directed fishery as tch of rockfish in the longline halibut fi ry. Pacific cod fishery: year round, is a long line fishery. Has gher price in fall. 8 permits in Glacier Bay in '97, 22 average 3 r year over last 10 years. 47 permits in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait in 1997 (average 26 over last 10 years). Locations: Glacier Bay confidential in '97 (?) = 3 or fewer vessels. Most effort is in Icy Strait south of Pleasant Island. Lingcod: rected season: May 1-Nov. 30. Gear: Dinglebar troll (mechanical jib that touches bottom to attract the fi ) only s Lingcod, t re very "clean". Bycatch: lingcod are also caught in t halibut and groundfish longline fisheries. And in salmon power troll. Fis ry moved southern Cross Sound to outer coast '94 '95. 35 vessels in the directed fishery in past 10 years. tch vessels take mostly small harvest (-150 vessels in last 10 years.) Have a behavior of following hooligan on outer coast and a few vessels happened into them there, pure luck, not predic le and the lingcod were not there a few days later. Sablefish: limited entry Sep.l-Nov. 15. line only, no harvest in Glacier Bay proper, most effort is Chatham Strait. No outer coast fishing is allowed since I fishing was started. Demersal shelf rockfish: most by-catch in halibut longline fis : March 16-Nov. 15. Directed: none in Glacier Bay, very litt on outer coast. From Icy Pt. to Khaz Head has been closed to directed fishing for last ? years. Q from Randy King: how long-lived are lingcod? Answer: Not so long, -20 years. Do this nest gua in winter. Young move around lots though some are residential: that research done by Br tish Columbia researchers. Lingcod habitat: are they hooligan-following because it's lingcod habitat? Answer: move a lot, not predict e. Harvest is based on ta per unit of habitat, she went way more conservative same numbers as Washington and where they had problems. ourn at 17:50 (no panel scussion). Questions/Discussion ld at time of presentation Participants and visitors from sign-in sheet and agenda introductions. Listed alphabetically will not be c lete if indivi 1 did not sign-in or came to the session late. Bob Barbee Diane Bigge Jim Bohnsack Rob Bosworth Jim Brady Brakel Daniel Brand Culp Tina Cunning Dennerlein Joe Emerson Ottie Florschutz Dan ey Dave Gaudet Tom Gemmell Sally bert Judy Gottlieb Kenneth Grant Jeff Hartman Jack Hession Ri rd Hofmann Elizabeth Ross Hooge Phil Hooge Howe Ken Imamura Heinrich Kadake Dale Kelley King Bart Koehler Gordon Kruse Stan Leaphart Scott Marshall Mathews McGregor e Morin Mary Beth Moss Jos Muir Joan Neal Chuck O'Clair Be Marie O'Connell Tory O'Connell 24 Pat Phelan John Quinley Sally Rue Jev Schelton Sharp Tom Shirley Allen Smith Chad Soiseth z Solomon Ron Somerville G Streveler Naomi Sundberg Kathy Swiderski Ka Swiney Taggart Jim Tilmant Tom Traibush Bob Trumble Bruce Weyhrauch Jim Woodby Deb Woodruff Glen Yankus 25 NPS Desired Outcomes and Principles for Resolving Glacier Bay National Park Commercial Fishing Issues January 1998 Goal: The National Park Service's goal in managing Glacier Bay National Park is to protect park resources and values in perpetuity. Specifically, NP wishes to ensure that terrestrial and marine ecosystems remain natural and that appropriate visitor use opportunitie are available. Outcomes: Specific to resolution of commercial fishing issues. NPS s desired outcomes include: • atural ecosystem processes, biodiversity. population structure and density of species, and habitats are preserved and perpetuated -Resident and/or sensitive species are protected -No significant expansion of existing fisheries; no new .fisheries • Wilderness and other park inspirational, recreational and educational values are protected -Fisheries are managed in concert with other parlc values • Knowledge and understanding of marine ecosystems are expanded -Provide opportunities for science benefiting fisheries and marine ecosystems • Visitor e perience opportunities in the park are enhanced • Hoonah Tlingit cultural ties to th park are sustained and strengthened Principles: NPS believes that an nduring resolution must be founded on an effective I cooperative relationship with the State of Alaska. support socioeconomic tability in local communities, and treat individual fishermen fairly. For Friday: Bring tape/pins Mylar? 40 Copies of Agenda and Chip's thing HALIBUT Bob Trumble, IPHC biologist Glacier Bay Workshop Fisheries Presentations Sponsored by NPS Thursday, January 8, 1997 Phil, USGS Resource Division, Halibut in Glacier Bay Manage based on biological characteristics Adult fish spawn in outter part of continental shelf ( 400-1000 feet), eggs drift, hundreds or thousands of miles from where they spawn. Spawning locations are much more aggregated -some very important. Spawning takes place in winter, when fishing is closed, so not an issue. Fish drift as far as Russia. Migrate counter to drift that carried them as juveniles to general region they were spawned --not homing instinct, but general area. Some halibut found as far south as Oregon. Commercial fishery--exclusively hook & line fishery. Fishermen will layout a couple of miles of line at at ime. Usually the gaff hook brings them on board. IPHC biologists cut out otolith to age fish. Get general information on health of populations. Use wire tags in gil cover of halibut. Exploitation rate is currently 20% is applied to Exploitable Biomass Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY) Track: Sports Catch, Wasteage, Bycatch and Personal Use ---THEN commercial fisheries gets what is left over. Glacier Bay is in Area 2C (under IPHC) IPHC areas are very large -allocation is dispersed to force fishermen to go to farther areas. However, local depletion may exist in areas like Glacier Bay, Homer. However, this is not IPHC's concern--they are concerned with overall health of fishery. Cannot allocate on small scales. Local depletion may be a problem in GB. The IPHC makes regulations. The Council can further restrict the regulations, as long as they don'g conflict with Table 1. Commercial catch ofPacific halibut by regulatory area, in thousands of pounds. Regulatory area 2C Area 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2C *Area 2C decreased until1997, when it went up slightly. *will recommend harvest of 12 million pounds in 1998. Slide: 1992 Skate locations (pre-IFQ) 96 to Ill boats participated in fishery. 1993: 41-51 boats Density ofEffort ofHalibut fishing in Glacier Bay 1992-1994 (all pre-IFQ) (good map) *By far, most of fishing taking place in lower portion of bay and Dundas Bay IPHC statistical units Glacier Bay Proper is unit 184 Commercail Harvest of Pacific Halibut in Glacier Bay area (glacier bay proper is much smaller than icy strait and outer coast.) * harvest in bay remains stable. Pre-IFQ: between 90 and 250 boats. Right now: don't know. 30-45 boats reported halibut landings in Glacier Bay. What are the effects of commercial fishing on the Glacier Bay marine ecosystem? Life History Strategies of Pacific Halibut Introduction Diet Movement Habitat Selection and Distribution Ecological Relationships Managment Implications Home Range has big implications for management. 12,--- Applied sonic tags to fish to determine home range. Surgically implanted, lasted for three years, tagged 108 fish. Did not expect results they got. Found that halibut have very small home ranges, especially very large halibut. Even though the total area was small, the actual area was even smaller. Spend about 90% of time in a very, very small area. Usually, less than Ill 0 of a square kilometer. *After the derby fisheries, halibut actually shifted their home ranges to a new range. *Moved to mouth of river during time salmon were running, moved back to larger, less restricted range when salmon run was over. Three Different Movement patterns: Between Year Site Fidelity *Six halibut were sonic-tagged using implanted tags in 1992. *of the six, five were found the following year within 1 km of original tagging site. Of the surgically tagged fish: • About 50% return each year from the previous year • Overwintering: At least 35% of population stays in Glacier Bay year round. Transplant Experiment: Tried to move fish --returned by next day to pickup. Wire Tag Recaptures Halibut were significantly more likely to be recaptured near the original capture site. Tagged: 11 00? Recaptured: 118 fish Halibut Chronosequence in Glacier Bay Highest concentration of catches in lower bay, middle bay, and up east arm. Prime determinate is oceanographic conditions, depends on sedimentation rates: higher sedimentation = more halibut. Very low numbers of halibut in west arms. Two Different Patters? Site Fidelity small home ranges, larger individuals, evenly distibuted Less fidelity --large home ranges: smaller halibut. Foraging specialization on larger fish: sit in one place and wait for prey Smaller halibut foraging specialization on small fish and crustaceans. Estimated Harvest Rate 1st year ofiFQs, the harvest of halibut dropped (below the 20%), but in 1996, it went up to about 3 5% of the population. Estimates of Halibut Catch in Glacier Bay (bar chart by Sport and Charter Catch--While the amount of harvest is low relative to com'l fishing, SPORT AND CHARTER CATCH IS VERY AREA SPECIFIC, can be isolated Sport and Charter Catch approaches 45% of the halibut biomass in Bartlett Cove ADF&G REGION ONE PERSENTATION Scott Marshall: Troll, Tanner Crab, Dungeness Shorten: groundfish, net, scallops, shrimp Heritage of Use and Abuse: The Source of Alask's Vision • subsistence • economic dependence of coastal communities • absentee corporate control of fishing (is referred to as federal managment, but actually there was no management) • federal mismanagement of salmon • sustainable fisheries was one impetus for statehood. Harvest deline up to 1958, when statehood started. Has improved steadily until today. Alaska constitutional mandate: Fishery resources shall be developed, maintained, and utilized on sustained yield basis. Preferential uses The Legilature's Vision • Created citizen board to set policy • Created Department to conduct daily management • Local Advisory committees • Limited Entry commission Inactive Fisheries in Glacier Bay Proper Shrimp Herring Clams (hard shell) Dive Fisheries Sea Cucumbers Sea urchins Sockeye salmon (no seining in Icy Strait for 23 years) Statistical Areas in Glacier Bay Region First digit is region: 1 Areas numbered from south to north (Ketchikan is 101) Subdistrict is third number Outer Coast is 116 Icy Strait is 114 Inside GB Proper is 114-70 Structure was one to catalog salmon streams Voluntary system of asking fishermen to write down where they caught fish. Biologists have b Groundfish: Tori has log books. Stat areas are different. Shellfish: Commercial Salmon Seine Fisheries • None in Glacier Bay Proper • • (see ppt. hard copy) Dave Gaudet: Salmon Troll Troll Vessels and Gear Troll fishery, not trawl. Troll fishery targest salmon. Does not use a net, does not have any contact with bottom. Very little bycatch. Majority of Coho Fishing takes place south of Cape Spencer. There is some coho fishing in the park, but not a very concentrated fishery. Chinook Salmon Characteristics Only 34 rivers in SEAK support chinook --all on mainland except one on an island. No documented spawning populations in Glacier Bay Chinook migrate from as far as Oregon. Southeast Alaska Chinook Fishery STock Composition Winter Troll Catch *most are from hatcheries. Exvessel Value of Troll Caught Salmon DRAFT AGENDA ------------------~ Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game Working Group Members: Friday, January 9, 1998 8:30a.m. to 4:00p.m. Hickel Room, Centennial Hall Juneau, Alaska Purpose: To review and discuss options for resolving Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Issues, to hear and consider Beardslee crab fishermen presentation, to consider inner bay options for halibut, salmon troll fishing and Tanner crab, and to continue discussing consensus points. 1. Introduction (meeting purpose, introduction of work group members and observers, overview of agenda, and ground rules). 2. Results from last working group meeting and where we are. 3. Overview ofStreveler example & Dennerlein proposal. 4. Comparison of Proposals (Streveler, Dennerlein, NPS, and other proposals. a. Areas of overlap b. Differences c. Unique considerations d. Areas of concern (4 inner bay fisheries and outer bay exceptions) 5. Inner Bay considerations a. Halibut b. Salmon troll c. Tanner crabs 6. Beardslee Crab Fishermen Presentation and Discussion. (11 :00) Lunch Break (12:01-1:00 p.m.) 7. Inner Bay Considerations continued a. Halibut b. Salmon troll fishery c. Tanner crab fishery 8. Outer Bay Considerations (Dennerlein proposal, time permitting) 9. Review of new Consensus Points. 10. Work Goals and Schedule. 12. Next Work Group Meeting Agenda (Small group meetings/February 4 meeting). 4:00p.m. Adjourn Frank Rue, Commissioner Public Communications P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 (907) 465-6167 Alaska Department of Fish and Game ------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 9, 1998 DRAFT NEWS CONTACT: Diane Regan (907) 465-6167 GLACIER BAY COMMERCIAL FISHERIE~ .,..- Stakeholders and State Prepare ,,. - lMS UP a rings Juneau -The 15-year ~._.. banned in Glacier B~\1 •. future. Congr De put} way to l and park Th, the issue Vlt organizatior months, stak a formal posil Juneau. Any n ;es will be ear vith worth, 'sa .c:~st two .. .;>os. They aim to have .. ::~s scheduled for February 4 in •. -..dooards . "Alaska \ must be fair to fi~ said Bosworth. ..... cessions on jurisdiction of Glacier Bay. Any resolution .• ell, should be created in Alaska, and must protect resources," Legislation sponsored by U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Aiaska) to permanently authorize commercial fishing Glacier Bay is slated to come before the House Resources Committee on February 26, 1998. Murskowski introduced S. 1064 last summer after the National Park Service (NPS) filed its latest proposed regulation in 1 Frank Rue, Commissioner Public Communications P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 (907) 465-6167 Alaska Department of Fish and Game FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 9, 1998 DRAFT NEWS CONTACT: Diane Regan (907) 465-6167 GLACIER BAY COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ISSUE WARMS UP Stakeholders and State Prepare for Congressional Hearings Juneau -The 15-year old question of whether or not commercial fisheries will be banned in Glacier Bay National Park appears headed for resolution within the near future. "This wave is going to crest within the next four to six weeks, culminating with Congressional hearings in Washington, D.C. at the end of February" said Rob Bosworth, Deputy Commissioner of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "We believe there is a way to continue commercial fishing in Glacier Bay while protecting natural resources and park values." The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is facilitating discussions to resolve the issue within Alaska among Glacier Bay stakeholders, including fishermen, native organizations and environmental groups. In a series of meetings over the last two months, stakeholders and the state have moved closer to consensus. They aim to have a formal position to take to Washington D.C. after meetings scheduled for February 4 in Juneau. Any resolution must fall within certain sideboards. "Alaska will make no concessions on jurisdiction of Glacier Bay. Any resolution must be fair to fishermen, should be created in Alaska, and must protect resources," said Bosworth. Legislation sponsored by U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Aiaska) to permanently authorize commercial fishing Glacier Bay is slated to come before the House Resources Committee on February 26, 1998. Murskowski introduced S. 1064 last summer after the National Park Service (NPS) filed its latest proposed regulation in April1997. The NPS rule would ban most fisheries within Glacier Bay Proper as soon as 1999. The National Park Service first attempted to ban commercial fishing in Glacier Bay in 1983, but the regulation was never adopted. In 1997, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling in Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen that there is no statutory ban on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay, but that commercial fishing is prohibited in wilderness waters. Some waters in the park have been designated as wilderness, including the Beardslee Islands where a valuable crab fishery takes place. In addition, the state of Alaska and the federal government are at odds over who has jurisdiction over the waters of Glacier Bay. Alaska claims that it is entitled to the land that lies underneath Glacier Bay under provisions of the Submerged Lands Act and the Statehood Act. Alaska has maintained management authority over fisheries in Glacier Bay since statehood in 1958. A ban on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay would be disastrous for fishermen and several communities that depend on the industry, including Hoonah, Elfin Cove, Gustavus and Pelican. Each year, fishermen harvest an average of about $3 million worth of chinook and coho salmon from the outer coast and Glacier Bay. The combined average value of the tanner and dungeness crab harvest is over $2 million per year. King crab, halibut, scallops, and shrimp also are harvested in the area. ### RADIO STATIONS: For actualities, call (907) 465-4112 INTERNET: www.state. ak. usllocallakpages/FISH. GAME!adfghome.htm 2 January9, 1998 Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game 8:30 AM Centennial Hall, Juneau Work Group Members Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska: Dale Kelley, Jev Shelton, Joe Emerson for Doug Ogilvy, Greg Haw sitting in for Paul Johnson, Tom Traibush Citizens' Advisoey Commission on Federal Areas: Stan Leaphart Friends of Glacier Bay: Bill Brown Hoonah Indian Association: Ken Grant National Parks and Conservation Association: Chip Dennerlein SEAlask:a Regional Native Corporation: Bob Loescher [absent] Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Bart Kohler (and Greg Streveler) State of Alaska, Department ofFish and Game: Rob Bosworth Alaska Wildlife Alliance: Anthony Crupi Sierra Club: Jack Hession Dave Hanson convened the meeting at 9:00AM. Welcome to the January meeting of the wg; explained his role as facilitator for this meeting as opposed to his work yesterday to facilitate the information meeting by NPS for its proposed rulemaking yesterday. This meeting is to discuss different options for GLBA np where including the rulemaking other options where there is common ground or understanding of a solution to the issues. Today's meeting weregoing to get into the nitty gritty of what specific fisheries and management options might or might not work or maight or might not be satisfactoey to most parties for GLAB. As such this meeting wilbe much more discussion oriented, to explore and discuss options; we will also be doing a presentation by the Dung crabbers who fish in the B.Is. Purpose: "from agenda" and we may also discuss some points for outer coast fisheries. Rob appreciate everyone's participation: Introduction ofWG members: CD, BK, GS, DK, JS, TT, Joe Emerson troller/longliner for Doug 0, Jim Brady, Molly Ross, DH going over agenda: We'll go over all the proposals and ideas then moving to specific fisheries and discussing ideas and options in the Inner Bay to start with. At 11:00 we'll have the Beardslee crab fishermen presentation. Then there are a few considerations for the Outer Bay. Today is the day to really talk about options and to talk about what might really work or not work. Let's minimize our positions and talk about what might satisfy as many parties as possible. We havethe usual ground rules of courtesy and respect I know this consideration has gone on for years and I want all of us to keep our focus on exploring on options and not focus on people or each other but on ideas and options. At the last meeting we went over several presentations on specifics of fisheries. Greg gave an example of a new approach; at end of meeting, CD gave some new ideas as a way to look at alternatives; between the meetings there has been lots of discussion by some of the parties who will be bringing up their further options today. Rob: Thanked Joe Emerson for the Hootchies. I would like to extend a special thanks to the observers and participants who have traveled far to be here today. We appreciate Molly Ross and Jim Bohnsack of NMFS, Allan Smith from Wilderness Society; and others. Dave asked for introductions by rest of persons present: Judy Gottlieb, Mary Beth Ross, Sally Rue, Sally Gibert, RK, TKDFG, SMDFG, DRDFG, A Sm, Dan Folley, John Quinley, Pat, Bob Barbee,?, KI, P, DW, AM, KS, DG DFG, Tom Charley Uof A, Chad, B Wey, Peter Org, Jim Taggert Rob: Copies of notes from previous meeting; if any corrections please let us know; later today we will have additional information in response to questions brought up during DFG presentations yesterday; staff will be speaking to those questions as those species of concern come up during day; Rob I would like to summarize why we are here and where we are headed, as I see it First I would like to make it clear that the State of Alaska is not attempting to dictate the outcome of this meeting. This is intended to be a true stakeholder process. For those of you who haven't been here before let me explain the approach we are taking to the issues of the National Park Service proposing to phase out fisheries. We are dividing the big issues into a number of smaller issues which we can deal with, which we refer to as the consensus points. What we mean by consensus is: "an opinion held by all or most", in other words, all or a majority hold the opinion. The more interest groups we have, the more weight with a position that is achieved, the more likely we will be able to control our own destinies. If there are a few hold outs, we are going to continue to move forward nonetheless. I believe the best chance we have of reaching a satisfactory and politically stable solution, is we need to keep working together here in Alaska. There is a big risk of this issue being taken over by politicians who are not really interested in the people of Southeast Alaska and maybe not even in the interests of the resources of the park. I'm consistently advised by people who spend a lot of time in DC that if this group goes back there, or through the rulemaking process, with no position or an overly general position, then we will give up a lot of control over the final outcome. If we leave a vacuum, it will be filled. So we need broad consensus to keep the broadest support possible. The issue of state jurisdiction is of tremendous concern to the state. As I've said before, we cannot accept an agreement that limits our jurisdictional claim. The state believes it owns the submerged lands and manages the fish resources Glacier Bay. This somewhat limits the options for settlement but it also makes legislation all the more appealing to reach solution. This does not mean rulemaking and legislation are incompatible. The definition of success includes: • an approach that addresses all the key points of this issue, many of which we will focus on for the first time; • an approach that recognizes the concept of reserve of marine areas where fisheries does not occur; • recognition of the values of areas where fisheries do occur subject to world class research and management • an approach that recognizes and accommodates the resources and purposes of the park; • uses science to gnide wise management and use decisions • an approach that uses local knowledge in fisheries and park management; • and an approach that treats fishermen fairly. This view is not shared by all in this room, but in my view, Glacier Bay National Park becomes a model for enlightened park management; that is politically stable because it has local support and management that is broadly supported. I hope this is a collective vision. We need to make real progress today. We'll work through today on the remaining issues. We are scheduling the next meetings for February 3 and 4. We hope that meeting will put the finishing touches on the collective outcome of the Work Group; we hope this is a centrist position. I hope we have sufficient support that we can control the outcome as much as possible. Dave: The word influence is better than control; this is a very big process with a lot of players, including thosenationwide, so hopefully any package will influence the outcome. Ken: Asked about the state's position: he asked about compromise. Rob clarified that the state cannot accept anything that compromises its legal claim. It believes we have title to the submerged lands of GLBA. That will ultimately be decided through the legal system, but that does not provide a current conclusion to the issues, so we are tiying to develop an approach that protects the various interests of the reosurces and uses of the park without compromises our issue of ownership. Kathy Swiderski clarified that the state claims ownership and management of the marine submerged lands and navigable waterways. Ken thanked the clarification. Molly Ross: Rob said it just right; how could the state do anything in there that it has some jurisdiction in there. It would be an act against state interest to say othenvise. The reason this is not an issue we are going to decide here, is that the federal government believes the statutory authority to regulate fisheries and other activities that occur in the waters as well as ownership of the submerged lands. It is critical that we do somethinghere together that gets beyond this because weren't going to resolve it here. NPS also cannot be part of a consensus process until the rulemaking processis over but we respect this process enought that you can get some feel for how we feel aboutthe progress and hope this will be resolved here. Ken feared that we might spend oures here laboringover this; would like some assurance that we don't come to a solution then have the state come forward and say can't do. Emerson; the discussion of marine reserves has been very valuable in this group but does involve tte jurisdiction of who controls this reserve so is complicated to discuss this issue without the jurisdictional question. As an observer, I get into sticky problems of marinereserves like who is going to create it Rob: Goes back to our 1996 positions where we put together our list of state authoritties that could be used to manag surface waters in GLBA. Parrallel to federal authorities; so we could adopt parallel regulations to accomplish as one model. Dave: summariezed we can go forward with concept then worry about how toimplement. Wanda Culp: jurisdictional issue; Hoonah people also feel they have jurisdiction in and around the park; we have an active tribal govememnent that could be active in resolving some of these issues. We are not tiying to claim over the state and federal authroties but with them. We are also talking about customary and trad uses in subsistence and commercial fisheries in the bay. Our interests are as heavy; marine mammals our native people could be insyrucmental in controlling populations; we could participate in a lot of areas. Dave: Summarized rest of agenda Gregor Bart: any additional comments on example put up last meeting? Greg: a way to think about GLBA. New ideas and ways to think about the problem. 2 premises as a start: (1) all the major fisheries in the park should continue in some form. (2) needs to be a major protected area in the park -a reserve that works. Second premise: think of GB as three parts: lower bay: manage same as Icy Strait. Some combination of wilderness waters and other waters that are un:fished. Then, a third part that include Beardslees, middle waters, and drawing a line somewhere in there which need not be closed to fishing and there is a good rationalle to continue; we have never heard a rationale that the winter king salmon fishery should nnot continue; with regard to halibut, we hope that we can adjust the lower bay line can include halibut ongoing contiguous with Icy Strait; please consider a line moe or less at Strawberry that would leave the lower bay open to commercial fishing and there are some problems with the location of that line; the halibut fishery would be closed above that line. Tanner crab fishing is a little stickier. If muir inlet were closed to Tanner crab. There is a fair population in Skidmore that would be closed because is WW. If those are off limits, TC fishing could continue in middle bay which is key to the fleet as well as lower bay. Dcrab is the toughtest. We have come up with some constraints, we've become convinced that viding the BI does not work; it needs to be managed as a unit. The summer fishery is the more conflicted of the two because of park purposes but hard to have a fall fishery that works for people; from the stand point of marine reserve idea and park purposes, some part of the inner bay need to be closed to DC fishing, doesn't need to be BI. It is not themajor part of the fishery but the middle bay should remain open so that a small but viable fishery can be retained. The BI seems to be the lynch. Middle Bay is roughly up to Hugh Inlet; Jim Bonsak did a great service yesterday inshowing us how the concept of marine reserves can work.. We need to think a lot about the purposes of the rserve because that will define the resetve. Thre is merit to having a set of small peices as well as one big piece; that wll had up to something significant; we ratify the statement that was gotten to last time; salmon and halibut in outer waters are unconflicted and wil continue as is. The other fisheries have to be looked at one of a time but there may be some exceptions like scallops within the park boundary, there is not reason to close the fisheries on outer coast but perhaps to agree to some special restrictions. Scallop fishery does not seems to be huge fishery and because there seems to be some halibut concerns, we think there may be a reason to close it. Chip: First, do people have the paper? Handout: We have talked about a lot of principles, Rob summarized the best I have heard. Here are the principles of the park, reality of fisheries management, and discuss conditions. There's a very specific management of the outer waters and the bay because it is all about fisheries management and consetvation. This is a synthesis of fisheries information put together into a serious proposal. It is not a NPCA formal proposal nor an environmental proposal; it is my shot at moving forward in good faith, this is not a stalking horse in gamesmanship; I hope that you will look at it that you can change your minds; we continue to learn things and change minds as this process moves. I do address the proposal related to the jurisdiction issue; there is a cooperative research plan, it is in my first cut put together bthe Secretary and Board ofFish; because if the Board ofFish adopts, it is the fish regs, if the Secretary adopts also it gives stability and long life. Dave: look at pages 3 and 4 so we can do comparison. Randy: To capsulate the key points of the proposed rule; recognizes traditional fisheries for 15 years in inner waters; outside waters allowed to continue under cooperative management process; on outside waters, gear types are limited so would preclude dinglebar (lingcod) and (dredges) scallop and ringnets and divers (king crab) in outer waters 15 year phaseout with reevaluation. Inside waterswould be closed after 15 years for all gear types, DC and TC (except summer closure), longlining for salmon, WW close with exception of MAD study which would continue for 7 years; two proposed studies in regulations (the MA study of crab is in regs) the study on halibut is in the preamble closing above Strawberry for purpose of halibt study; Lituya and Dundas Bays are also raised in preamble for comments but not in proposed regulations. No new fisheries and no new gear types throughout the park. Dave clarified NPS regulatory process Molly: clarified "Preamble" is in all the prose that preceeds the proposal; you know it is important because we are seeking comment but is not in the actual proposal in regulatory language. Ken: It would be helpful to have a printoutofthe proposed rule in front of us. It would also be helpful if we had a map that clarified outer. Jev asked for clarification of why targetting king crab. RK explained tried to protect themore significant fisheries and kc have been a species of concern. Just tried to recognize gear types that have been used for a long time. Jev clarified the KC fishery has been curtailed by DFG in recent years; it is a long standing historical fishery. It is a matter of chance that it is more restricted ; it is ironic that good management to protect the fishery would result in closure of a long term fishery as an insigificant fishery. Further discussion on "6 out of 1 0" years as recent history versus history of the park; idea was to address those persons most dependent upon the fishery now. Tom, the KC fishery has been managed by the state and are not being allowed to participate; so NPS is saying that those not fishing now would "not have a history" even though fished throughout the 60s and 70s. Dave: We had Greg, Chip, Randy put together a list as an overview of the differences of the proposals and are there any others who would like to add to this as far as suggested approaches and on where. Glacier Bay Proper: Troll salmon Halibut Bart/Greg Owinter 0/Lbay Chip o/winter 0/Lbay NPS o/15 yr 0/15 yr except WW by history Tanner 0/L&M OIL and part of mid 0/15 yr except WW by history fir 15 yr; refugia Dungeness 0/Mw/exce 01 Y2 BI for study 0/15 yr except WW by history; identify participants Blfor MAD study 5-7 yrs Other 0/w/exceptions c c C/charter boat concesion GL BA Outer waters Troll salmon 0 0/coop mgmt and studies 0/15 yr eval; coop mgmt w state halibut 0 0 0 """ scallops C* C C/not recognized gear types rockfish 0* C 0/species of concern; coop mgmt lingcod 0* C C-not recognized gear types dungeness 0* 0 + C w/refugia & research 0/15 yr eval coop mgmt Tanner 0* 0/15 yr coop plan 0/ 15 year eval coop mgemt Pacific cod 0* ? 15 yr coop plan 0/ 15 year eval; coop mgment blackcod 0* C 0/ 15 yr eval; coop mgmt king crab 0* ? 15 yr coop plan C Excursion seine 0* 15 yr coop plan 0/ 15 yr eval; coop mgmt shrimp 0* ?IC 0/15 yr eval; coopmgemnt other C-no new fisheries C/no new C/no new fisheries/gear types or gear types fisheries or gear Various points of consideration: Chip: if there are fisheries which have come down to small runa and state mised senstive species management, then something could trip coop mgmt Dale asked for clarification of closure versus coop mgmt process working When talk about Excusrsion Inlet, does NPS claimjurisidcation? NPS only claim runs up the middle. The river is in the park. Proposed rule summer closure is tied to visitor use season May through September, except MAD study in BI. Other parts of GLB proper closed to other fisheries. Dale: Handout talking paper; this is our current standing position; but here as part of WG will work. After lunch we have something that will be able to relate to the flip chart table. We support fishing in the park under state management. In outer waters, we do not support any additional regulation. We do support limiting the fisheries to those currently regulated by the state and can agree to no new or expanded fisheries; there is not much chance anyway do to constrictions and limited entry. Inside waters we have asked for special consideration for BI to WW closures; For rest of inner waters, lets deal with individual fisheries. Always the biological concerns are number one. Supportive of sport fisheries-although NPS and Chip's proposals refer to those fisheries, we will not support. We do not represent scallop fishermen, there we defer tothe state Board and DFG. We support an environmental council made up of allinterest groups andmanagement plan for inner bay for approval by BoardofFish process. Perhaps Board ofFish needs to be kept up to speed but they tend to rubber stamp a cooperative plan brought to them by all affected parties. We do not support marine reserves; a lot of the problems are what are the goals and objective, what do they mean; are in national focus but if looking at managing special areas in special ways, we can discuss that but not comfortable with the term marine reserves and what that means. Jev: In terms of "marine reserves" and other issues, we need to get to the points and not on the abstract philosophical underpinnings of the concepts. Greg Howe: Could support a marine reserve as opposed to the formal Allied Fishermen position. Suggest a line farther north in Bay, line of latitude ( 58o 50 m) at mouth of Adams Inlet just north of Tidal Inlet and Muir Arm which would encompass the majority of existing fisheries below that line and could support a marine reserve. Below that line could support a summer closure such as May 15 through Sept 1. Dave: Any other general suggestions in approach? Jack: More than happy to continue to participate in the process. (some digression into fisheries in the 60s and 70s) Jev: From the fishermen's standpoint, support for research, but research in the vague prospective fashion should not be a tool for closure, but particulars for studies is what is important and supported. Chip: (1) We have evolved in management, state is doing great job; 2) respect what AF has put ontable, but where can we go from here? I may be wasting my time here,-I can accept from fishermen a couple meetings ago but I can't continue to participate if can't support some closures of some fisheries; two timelines coming up: hearing on legislation February and comments due on regulations. We need to be moving on each of the points. Dale any time we have identified gear types, we have never identified scallops. Chip; If we have a cooperative management, could Dale sell that as opposed to just state management. Dave: Summarized points: (1) let's focus on issues and move forward (2) scallops will be a key agenda item we'll get to right after lunch; allied fishermen has never advocated for that gear type or fishery; and (3) even tho allied fishermen put out a paper of positions, they are willing to considera on a fishery by fishery basis as building blocks. There desire is the same as yours. Chip: I'm going back to my Board next week, so hopefully you can move. Break 11:00 to 11:15 Tom Traibush: Handout of Beardslee Island crabbers ofkey points ... We support the prior positions described that outer waters remain open. The position is as part of help to reach a "compromise" with NPS and Sate regarding GLBA itself. Went through paper. Because Beardslees is a focal point, we are willing to discuss it but support continuation of all fisheries in the Bay. Deb: NPS consumer report, 93% respondents that their visit mostly or completely lived up to their expectations of the park. This is "incredible". Glacier Bay received a 93 score rating of "Excellent". 3 5 scored between 90 and 79. Acadia NP in Maine had its beaches rated as excellent by more than 60%, commercial fishing and crabbin, scallops, fishing, and darning is allowed in the national park. Isle Royale allows grazing and commercial fishing. What are we doing right in theis park?--There were no complaints received in the quality, visitor services. We might want to deal with visitor expectations more so that they know what to expect so not set up for disappointment, improve communications and friendlier relations, mapping of concesion routes, get local support for conscession reform, including getting some money for fishery research; polution studies because of sewage and fuel leak problems. Deb also had a page of jobs that are in the community that show how interconnected the industry is in the community, and how much impact there \\'ill be when take away the crabbers. Losses to Crabbers: lifestyle, we are close to the area and others who are close to the park ;(2) tradition, history, cultural identification (3) stability in many local towns esp Gustavus, but includes Pelican, hoonah, Elfin Cove, Juneau, Petersburg. (4) Livelihood-not just a job. Well developed business with significant startup costs, Years spent developingmarkets, net works, new markets; Knowledge and skills of our specific fisehry and region; and loss of ability for new jobs; OTTI; Outrnigration of fishing effort to other Dungie fishers inboth local and outlying regions (this is a third ranked most productive area in SE will have an effect throughout SE); Effects of limited access to economically viable fishing grounds; (5) Deb: loss of access to state's healthy, sustainable/renewable resource; 1 of 3 Dungie grounds (eg., AK Airlines jets) (6) Possible discontinuation of AAjet service with associated increase juneau gustavus small planes (7) loss of advertising of the bounty availalbe to tourists (8) loss of jobs; Skipper and crew, often families; effects on processors and fish operations, effects on smokehouse; major effects onother businesses, effects on support members (9) lost diversification in the town;e.g., Pelican says 70-80% of base is CF. (10) Threat to family structure-over 70 local GSt residents have been involved innat least 1 fishery ( 11) loss to tourists, fisherman, businesses of sharing exposure to authentic Alaskan experiences of connection with real people (12) State constitution madates the continuation offishereis; it is a prize; always a promise tosustain this use in perpetuity (13) loss to posterity, ability to apss on a legacy to yourchildren andothers; positive mentor relationships. There is stress under the combination of all these jobs on families, domestic violence, bankruptcy, moving, etc. We have assessed that the job losses have multiplier effects 1 job lost equates to 7 jobs impacted. Jeff Hartman: Economist with DFG doing some studies~ there is very little socio-economic information on some of these small communities. Deb: The professional work being done on this will be done in March so not available. Ken: Alaska Discovery consession that does guided wilderness tours in the park; the commercial kayak position -we feel verymuch a part of the Gustavus community. In the 26 years we've been there we've never had a single guide or visitor negative interaction or complaint, whichis why we are not involved as a stakeholder in this issue. We are quite defensive of the Wilderness Value for our clients; we are very interested in the commercial tourism traffice; commercial fishing has not been a problem for us; we actually find they are helpful to us for local knowledge and commercial operators during off commercial fishing season; maybe l/3 of the kayak use in the park we do in a year including the east and west arsm, BI, a lot in the Bay proper and a little in Dundas Bay. There has never been an issue with Commercial fishing so are supportive of working out a solution that allows that to continue. We don't recommend a particular solution. Molly Ross: You have a very high reputation. I have read kayaker comments that are critical of several aspects of the commercial fishery. Ken clarified that guides know and what he says the type of vessels so can influence expectations and biases based on. Deb pointed out several instances where NPS staff were planting negative seeds about commercial fishing and encouraging lobbyin of congressmen; Deb: Re BI area, there is a willingness to work more with the state biologists and be interviewed and to share observations between gear groups. We're conscientous of the status ofthe resources; we'd like to put some effort into port sampling like was done in Petersburg; NPS has done some substarta work and we'd like that to be shared with DFG and then we can help provide some information to the biologists. The Stikin River flats nd Beardslees are key, perhps should be doing some share inn information sharing; great concern over the fact that a dungeness study was going on for 5 years in the BI but no mechanism was set up for tag recovery, conduct of study, that represents major rift with nps staff didn't have in past. We have a unique pot fisehry rather than line fishery solocals can handle it; We've already seen our season wittled down as 6 weeks was already reduced in the summer to reduce contact with kayakers; now pushing us more into late fall season; Kara: Glacier Bay SeaKayaks also sent a letter to NPS on rulemaking-in 27 years they had not problems or complaints from users regarding the commercial fisheries. Outside boats making snail hauls we know aren't going tomake it. The fleet needs the whole BI to be economically viable, weather factors affect fathom of fishig and locations within the bay affect what the crab are doing; mobility of using the whole area is exremely important. Markets: The two processors in Gustavus have a high standard related to condition of crab and handling so also get a higher dollar. Would like to see a more open door policy and dialogue with the park.. In the past, there was a lot more floatplane traffic in old days, so we suggested a corridor system to provide ROW for aircraft and dealt with the superintendent. Otti: It's a complex issue and the main thing I want to emhasize, is we need to work and our willingness to work on this issue. Dave: thanked the group' proposal on psoitions and Deb's presentation on the wide range of issues. Chip: Wehre do we go from here? How do we negotiate now. This is very valuable and I am looking forward to working with you on this. I agree with your observations; this is an issue of viability in the community. In going through the proposals, the part about the Y:z closure I put out in mine you say doesn't work, OK 1m open to that. If it is not workable, then I'm willing to look at it. Determining the individuals who rely on this and have a set class of people. I agree that is a very valuable part of the proposal. I didn't define that in mine and I agree that a process for defining that. The process you have for eliminating conflicts with other users-! agree. I agree with your buyout issue, and (Tom clarified there is a loss of a permit when it is boughtout) the method to reduce competitionin other areas; The two- party willing seller option, I agree with. What I think the closure of some areas like HM and Adams and sense of closing Seabree and a specific step is very valuable. I have concerns about the cornerstone issue of 50 years, are we talking about fairess toindividuals or continuation of a tradition; our group bas a hard timewith ongoing; I could sell fairness to people who are there now-the next generation concept I don't agree with, but could with. Transfer of the permit, immediate family concept within the finite number of years I agree with; no other regs or restrictions other than board of fish I would like to add to for consideration-applying additional closure area to some line via a date step or additional area, I would apply to sport harvest. Nontransferrable to only family I agree. The buyout,is it a discounted cashflow over a number of years. Immunity from other regs and restrictions-! would amend by saying cooperative fishery management plan adopted by both NPS and Board ofFish. Greg: (1) Do the peole in the :fleet see any value to looking at some modfictions to how the fishing is done there. Complaints include operations such as loud radios at nights and can't see bouys (2) at beginning of season, a lotmore boats start in with local boats so his kind of a derby period? Deb; wouldn't be hard to self regulate some agreement on behaviour to reduce conflicts with tourists. As to question 2, if there is some kind of buyout it will reduce the number of people therein beginning; but NPS bas its own mechanical equipment starting up at same time too. Tom, as for restricting noise, seems the generators at Bartlett Cove are just as much a part. Otti: I would like to express our willingness to work, we're getting into the nuts and bolts and we're clarifying our position and as we go through this, it may be too early to deal with every little thing, but as far as Chip's point address ingout migration; we're not just talking about money as there are other aspects of impacts and willingness to work on specifics. Bart: Appreciate all the time that has gone itno the presentation. Adms, Rendu, and HM are WW and should be closed. BI have always been a special case and hard to deal with. The acutal operation of the fleet willingness to wrok on recognition of park values. As far as park expectations, BI are a WW and technically should be closed. I am not sure about the 50 year time line; I agree with life tenancy but not sure how to deal with this. In regards to the special deal for the BI, I hope there is some additional protection of park vludes marine reserve or park waters in other areas. Bill Brown: Thoseof us who live in Gustavus are generally familiar with this, but this was a stunningly good presentation of the socio-economic information that needs to be considereed as well as the biology. I urge that whether we are considering the position of Friends of Glacier Bay or others, I urge that within our own group and other minds and hearts of people inthis room, this soci-eoconmic-biological relationship carry a lot more weight than it has because ofthe spinoff's and multipliers that have been brought up. Affects real work by those who actually participate in the fisehry. It would be good if we could continue that relationship. Chip: Call this a cultural fishery and set standards added to the plan as a way to do it. When do we get time to sit down and negotiate among just the Work Group members. This way there could be a permit with special stipulations that address behavor basics; I'm going to add this to my paper. Tom: The last time Molly was here, we' dindn't get past the outer waters. We need to be working on inside wates. Dave: We're trying to work on building blocks of several pieces, doesn't mean the other pieces are in place, this lends itslefto a small work group that could work on this over lunch. Dale: Seems like we're being separated into smaller groups where we need to consider fishing in the Inner waters as a whole. Dave: Regardless of how you put it together you still need to work onthe pieces. I am suggesting that a smaller gorup talk about the Bl andcome back to the larger group. Chip: I'm at a point where I am willing to take a risk; I'm not holding you to this deal; we'll not think it is bad faith if you change your mind. Dave, Dale, Chip, and Molly agreed that everyone feels uncomfortable but taking risks is important here and so there is no committment but a suggested package to hope tolive with it. Peter Org: It's pretty hard to placate a small group with a 50 year while others have a 15 year phase out which impacts me and I'm not being placated. Jack: Question for park staff or Molly. Ordinarily buyouts apply to property rights. Are there instances wherein purchases have been made? Molly. This is not a buyout in the sense of a property right; we are talking about economic incentives of what would be fair. Would require appropriated monies and legislation. Th 6 permits are out right away as these are WW; is there a way to be fair to thse individuals. WE are interested in these discussions to determine what is fair; Jack is right that we have to be sensitive that there will be a great concern that this will be perceived as a property right in current programs such as ESA, We're in dangerous straits tiyi.ng to negotiate what is fair. Rob: Fleet reductions have become more freuent in other locations as recognized in a chapter in the Magnusun Act. Dale: Property rights do include Limited Entry permits and IFQs that are affected by this. Tom: If the BI are a WW, then one of the intents could be a cultural area could include Hoonah residents as well as commercial fishing; summarized his areas of closures and openings again; research would be conducted in Seabree area Otti: Life tenancy, was a carrot given tous in the lasmeetings but we haven't been able to define it and doesn't address out migration and our investments. We tried to put a number on it Dave: Suggested a work group toput together some type of statement to narrow this down and bring back to the group after lunch: Chip, Otti, Tom, Bart, Ken, Bill, Deb, and perhaps Dale? Ken: Please clarify that this was a presentation not a negotiation session. I have a lot to add for consideration over all the fisehries in Excursion Inlet. Agreed to work until 5 and small group will meet and try to get back. Lunch break 12:45 until 2:00 PM: Reconvene 2:15 Over lunch a small work group which Greg and Otti will report on. What they came up with will be put up and given a brief time for clarification but then the members of the Work Group can work on it before the February meeting. After Otti's report, we will work on scallops then halibut in inner bay. Otti: We listed Tom's position (which NPS said was unacceptable); Chip and Jack would not support a change in the Bl's designation as WW, but possibly would support taking it to their boards to allow commercial fishing in the BI through legislation as long as it would not set precedence for others under the Wilderness Act. Bis will not be split, but kept as one unit. It was agreed that another area would be closed to crabbing to compensate for Bis being left open. RE: Phase outs: Tom's proposal was 50 years, NPS' was 5-7, Chip said 30 with a 10-year period it could be sold; permits should be associated with the Bay-should not migrate out into rest of fisheries in AK. One assignment: the closed area, didn't establish the line for the closure but NPS and State who can't negotiate: we can't pcik who and how a buyout, sit down and say what a buy out program would be that NPS and state could agree to as part of the program. (1) who would qualify and (2) what could consistent of a buyout, such as replacement. Bart agreed that Wilderness Waters would eventually be totally phased out but could continue as part of this agreement through the research option available in the Wilderness Act. Rob clarified for the group that we'll try to get through as many of these today as possible and get them out for everyone to have and consider before the February meeting. Anthony asked Molly to clarify how NPS can move forward with regulations in light of the appellate court decision prohibiting commercial fishing activities in Wilderness Waters. The crab study begun 5 years ago for information on Wilderness management that is valuable to us and the study is not intrusive. Who takes the crab is the next question; a commercial crabber is appropriate. We would have to look at what is proposed here to see if it is something we can do or will it take additional legislation. I don't have the answer for that. Is there any genuine reason that we could do the proposal here under the Wilderness legislation. Otti subbing in for Tom who had to leave. Dave: now we'll review Halibut in the Inner Bay: Greg Howe clarified the line he had proposed for a marine reserve of everything being closed north of the line 58o50min. Chip drew additional lines that have been proposed on the map. Jev explained difference in areas for fishing values versus recreational values-most of the cf goes on in the major corridors of the bay and not the peripheral and terminal areas of the bay and anns; the large vessel traffic follow the main inlets and are the most visible distwbances to the area which correspond with the bulk of the fishing-so we suggest not a line defining the entire bay and without treading on DC and on WW would be to look at excluding the main side inlets and upper ends of the arms excluding Bird and not including the dungeness. The upper part of Tar and Muir Inlets is interesting, as referred to wilderness water designations consideredin thelate 1980s. At Sealerss Rock and another at Pt McCleod or say going from Reed Inlet up to Russell Island then across. This would keep fishing where traditional with the least impact on visitors but would exclude very productive areas above those lines and provide some significant restrictions on a fishery (not a phase out). This leaves other areas open under current management. Albi mentioned that something to consider is that if fishermen are going to be displaced out of there w bile large intrusive cruise ships are still allowed; we don't want to force them out but would reduce the appearance of unfairness. Dave asked if there are any other concepts which would leave part of the Bay open to halibut fishing. Ken: fully support Jev' s conceptual approach and want to modify the lines, as another option but from my experience as a halibut fisherman the most historical harvest came from Gcekie Inlet across West Arm keep Jev's line in East Arm. Bart: Draw another line on the map just for point of discussion at 40o line-this line keeps 40% of the bay's halibut fishery as reported. Chip: Whatever the lines are, a plan to fish forever in most the Bay won't get sold to my Board. Whatever the biological concepts are Jev and Chip discussed jurisdictional dispute. Cip: constitutents want the bar to come down in the lower bay sometime in next 15 years. Biological reason is thre are concentrations up in main part of the bay, benthic environment is more diverse, so halibut may have full life cycle. (He drew his line on for closure of Tanner). Agree with Albi's point on cruise ships as we wanted an absolute cap of 2/day cruise ships, studies, and other pieces which were pulled out of the final legislation. Dave asked for clarification of halibut line because of relationship to cruise ships; Chip explained that there are some real refugia reasons for having the mid bay closed and leave the lower bay open. He proposed a line at Strawberry Island to close everything north of there, but if going north of there to Whiloby Island line for other fisheries then going back down to Beardslee area for halibut line. Some discussion of halibut sampling reported yesterday and how the fishery proceeds by Jev related to location of line and how it will work or not. Chip also discussed the values of science and other purposes and values related to commercial extraction. Chip asked if commercial fishing is going to end at the Bathemetric line sometime say 15 years. Greg asked if north of that area some areas unfished and others selectively fished. Chip argued back that refugia loses value if partial take. Jim clarified that it depends upon your goals but from a pure emperical reserve would be a no-take zone. So chip clarified he would rather have a line "forever" down sometime instead of a line that moves. Chip explained how he needs to sell a position to his Board next week. Greg: I researched this question of marine reserves quite a bit. The marine reserve as Chip is proposing it would be the biggest one in North Amerca. What Bart and I are trying to get to like Greg Howe proposed is a series of small reserves that have great fisheries or science and ecological value. (Jim confirmed) This gives us a system that protects a lot of concerns of people who are in the room Molly: Confirmed that Chip will have a fight to get this through NPCA. We already made a concession on the outer waters and the Bay's closure is what was important, so we were trying to soften the harm that each person was going to suffer as this area was closed. As you are talking about giving up portions of the Bay but the context is wrong, for it to be viable on a national stage it will have to be for more than science or benefit to fisheries, it is for the plants, the species who eat fish, and to study all these things. Dale: On one hand we are being told about park values, but when argue about science and research potentials, recall that there is no problem with the resources at this time. I would also remind you that nobody is more influenced by what happens here than the people that we represent in the communities, their families, and related persons. Dale asked for clarification of the lines. She then asked Chip if his proposal wasn't different than what the group had agreed to on outer coast during November meeting. He agreed that he had changed his mind regarding sablefish and scallops in outer coast after the presentations but halibut and salmon would remain in perpetuity on outer coast and allow some to continue in the lower part of the inner bay. Jack: from the point of view of the national park system, leaving aside the concept of marine reserves, the optimum line is drawn across the mouth of the bay. But we need to be fully engaged in a compromise process. Bart: Let's clarifY that we have agreed that there is a possibility of part of the bay being closed to halibut fishing, with a range of options that various people have agreed to. Jev: We need to all explore the set of potential advantages to the various approaches. Agree with Greg that there is an awful lot of value to having a series of reserves and the issue should be a discussion of what those spots do provide and what they do provide for the various user groups who are present here to satisfy their interests. This corridor concept of fishery will actually increase conflict of users rather than reduce. We need to keep that idea open. Bart: When this idea of trvel corridor first came up that my notion of how big that was a lot smaller than but if you equate this to development in other parks, couting the cruise ships as a major intrusion, then they would only look at west arm. Dale asked for Jack to clarifY his statement about compromise. Jack explained that when we start divying up the Bay proper. Jack; we're willing to consider the special circumstances of the Bis but willing to support some phase outin the Bay. Our position is very similar to the NPS proposed regulations, there are a couple of things we'd do differently in a few of the fjords but we support phase out in the Bay and a reevaluation of all fisheries including outer coast in 15 years. Break 3:50. Dave: I talked to ever interest group at this table. Scallops take less than 1% of their catch from park waters. Is there any objection to the statement that scallop boats should remain outside park waters to fish. Consensus. Bill Brown: We're dealing with conflicting absolutes and we are at a point, I sense impending doom, I think in the terms of traditional local cultures on one hand and traditional national parks on the other, separate and distinct as they are we're never going to overcome these absolutes. I think it worth trying to step up. It may disintegrate based on how things have developed over the last hour and a half or so. If two basic antepodes of our discourse, can we step up to a new plateau of discourse that we can on a fairly balance mode on park values and and other values in the region. Is there a way? Say at the end of a 15 year phase out, we have dashed lines instead of solid lines, where we can have room for real compromise under present law and present disposition that preserves a national park but keeps a local, dependent group of people who have fished here. If not, it is simply a power struggle that will be special legislation likely negative for all people and the park included. Then vetos, then regulations, then litigation. We need to find a way to put these two things together. Dave: There probably are a lot of things we can agree on. There are a lot of ways that we can discuss these things. Deb: We need our breaks so that we have time to consult with people and get clarification on issues. Rob: Reiterate the need to discuss options as we just got to. Realize that we are not going to come to agreement on all of these today. We'll get through what we can and put all options out for discussion but have until next meeting to let the ideas jel. Joe: Keep inmind that these lines are political lines, not biological lines. We should have reservations on how and where we draw lines that have biological impacts. Tanner Crab: Bart and Greg drew two approximate areas for boundaries of their proposal. Chip then drew a center area in the lower part of bay of which the portion of concentration of tanner crab as unexploited and part of area open for a while. Under NPS regs, everything is open for 15 years. Albi explained how putting all 20 crabbers in a small area and notoriously bad weather conditions will result in accidents and problems with pots on the bottom. I don't want to talk about time periods and phase outs just lines. Across the mouth ofMuir Inlet and blue mouse cove to Tidal Inlet. There is some historical large harvest north of these area. Geeke inlet is important to us but the stocks that live in Geeke are protected half the time because often the ice comes out so far we can't fish. The area south of the Beardslees the tides run so hard wecan't fish there. We fish in the winter, we don't even want to be there so no conflicts with other users. Re 15 year phase outs, there is really only about 20 boats that fish in the bay and onother 40 that fish in icy straits-there is only 80 permits in all of southeast Was surprised to hear from an NPS about the 15 year pahse out being based on 6 years out of 10 years. We went through this with the IFQs a few years ago. We bought our way into these fisheries at a great expense. The way we fish is to fish different areas each year, not in the bay each year, so new participants don't qualify even though we already took most of the losses on the IFQs. The older participants also got granted more poundage under the IFQs. The flats in front of Hugh Miller outside the WW. We just took a 20% cut in the number of pots we can fish and the Board is considering a further reduction. We're also down to 7 days throughout southeast Alaska. NPS seems worried about all 80 boats ending up in GLBA. There are basically only 3 strong areas for fisheries in SE and the way the state manages this, that is not a concern. Dave reminded everyone we all represent different groups with valid positions. Everyone is doing their best job to represent their group and encourage everyone to not take this personal. Dale discussion on how lines and presentations are going to be handled for the record. Rob; we need to be really explicit about what was discussed for the record but the input will be by individuals not by groups. Albi confirmed that too. So did Chip. When we are ready to develop positions on lines across the bay, we'll do it but these are just suggestions for consideration, not group positions. Albi asked about historic participation, stating for Molly that fair treatment, needs to be fairer than as proposed in the regulations. Molly confirmed she understood that the grandfathering is not really fair. Chip asked in Tanner Crab, (1) the fleet moves around, in last couple of years, about 60% of the fleet had fished in the last few years. Albi, no not that high, is out of GLBA Icy straits area of harvest, not of fleet. (2) Asked if the latest set of maps , if draw line at Geeke, lose a little bit in West Arm Hugh Miller complex; virtually all the other concentration areas are fished. Dave clarified that the map is for concentration areas but doesn't necessarily represent all the fish populations areas. This not even a complete picture of concentration areas, and the concentration areas change. Greg: let's put together a working committee that comes up with a list of goals of a marine reserve before the next meeting. Goals for splitting production areas versus separate discrete populations that need to be decided before drawing lines. Jev: These fisheries are stable; there are not huge impacts on stocks that cause the fishermen to move. This is bringing up ogres that don't really exist. Chip: Crab fishery overall has been fairly stable in SE but the overall concern I have is the history long term of crab is wide swings in harvest in areas. This causes localized depletions. Is this the best data we have or not? King Salmon -winter in the inner bay: Dale explained that the king troll fishery is open in the summer as well. Randy the NPS wants an open winter fishery only, the proposed rule allows fishing by people with historic participation for 15 years, but only open in winter. Dave: so a separate topic of trolling in summer needs to be talked about in the future. So options regarding winter fishery,: Chip so could be open under cooperative management plan, allied fishermen supported it remaining open. DH asked if there are other areas, seasons, information that needs to be considered. Should we try to break up the bay. Greg had put up a line that closed part of two arms to extraction including winter troll fishery. Joel: It might be better to support park values by allowing the troll fishery to continue because the majority of the fishery are hatchery fish. And so long as those fish are swimming up the bay, you never have a natural ecosystem. Chip: There is a concern by the environmental community for a number of reasons, this is not a natural fish, provides some seasonal opportunity, some line in which there is also no recreational fishery either. There is a line to get at a winter king troll fishing. Otti: asked if those criteria on traditional fishermen apply to the winter troll fishery as well. Dale: asked for clarification of Chips proposal of the winter king salmon troll fishery. Chip also thinks that there is precedence concerns. Dave: We'll try to get out a set of maps with the lines with some idea of what they mean. There have been some recommendations that we have an extra day set aside for the next meetings so the work group can meet for two days. Rob: We will be very explicit about our schedule and agenda. The 3rd is NPS socioeconomic meeting and research; 4th and 5th will be this work group. One idea is work groups could meet on 2nd; Brady suggests that the NPS dungeness and economic reports may only be a half day. Bart: What are your expectations for the Work Group outcome, given that the hearings are coming up February on the legislation? Rob, suggested we draft testimony sometime the third week of February for the Murkowski hearing. I am confident that the senator will invite this WG to be part of the panel Bart realize that the indivivdual groups will be doing testimony versus what the WG submits. Discussion about whether or not we are going to be able to do group testimony. Chip: My hope is that we could testify that is substantive. My other hope is that we could respect each groups discussions, that Dale could sent Chip his lines and specieis managmenet. My third point is that this is a test for all of us: don't do any legislation now; we are committed to this work group-if we are committed but not ready to draw lines, then that we should stay together. Chip if this is everyone's agreement then I will get on the plane next time. Dave: we need more discussion on this. January 9, 1998 Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 8:30AM Centennial HaD, Juneau Work Group Members Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska: Dale Kelley, Jev Shelton, Joe Emerson for Doug Ogilvy, Greg Haw sitting in for Paul Johnson, Tom Traibush Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas: Stan Leaphart Friends of Glacier Bay: Bill Brown Hoonah Indian Association: Ken Grant National Parks and Conservation Association: Chip Dennerlein SEAlaska Regional Native Corporation: Bob Loescher [absent] Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Bart Kohler (and Greg Streveler) State of Alaska, Department ofFish and Game: Rob Bosworth Alaska Wildlife Alliance: Anthony Crupi Sierra Club: Jack Hession Rob Bosworth. ADF&G: I would like to summarize why we are here and where we are headed, as I see it. First I would like to make it clear that the State of Alaska is not attempting to dictate the outcome of this meeting. This is intended to be a true stakeholder process. For those of you who haven't been here before let me explain the approach we are taking to the issues of the National Park Service proposing to phase out fisheries. We are dividing the big issues into a number of smaller issues which we can deal with, which we refer to as the consensus points. What we mean by consensus is: "an opinion held by all or most", in other words, all or a majority hold the opinion. The more interest groups we have, the more weight with a position that is achieved, the more likely we will be able to control our own destinies. If there are a few hold outs, we are going to continue to move forward nonetheless . I believe the best chance we have of reaching a satisfactory and politically stable solution, is we need to keep working together here in Alaska. There is a big risk of this issue being taken over by politicians who are not really interested in the people of Southeast Alaska and maybe not even in the interests of the resources of the park. I'm consistently advised by people who spend a lot of time in DC that if this group goes back there, or through the rulemaking process, with no position or an overly general position, then we will give up a lot of control over the final outcome. If we leave a vacuum, it will be filled. So we need broad consensus to keep the broadest support possible. The issue of state jurisdiction is of tremendous concern to the state. As I've said before, we cannot accept an agreement that limits our jurisdictional claim. The state believes it owns the submerged lands and manages the fish resources Glacier Bay. This somewhat limits the options for settlement but it also makes legislation all the more appealing to reach solution. This does not mean rulemaking and legislation are incompatible. The definition of success includes: • an approach that addresses all the key points of this issue, many of which we will focus on for the first time; • an approach that recognizes the concept of reserve of marine areas where fisheries does not occur; • recognition of the values of areas where fisheries do occur subject to world class research and management • an approach that recognizes and accommodates the resources and purposes of the park; • uses science to guide wise management and use decisions • an approach that uses local knowledge in fisheries and park management; • and an approach that treats fishermen fairly. This view is not shared by all in this room, but in my view, Glacier Bay National Park becomes a model for enlightened park management; that is politically stable because it has local support and management that is broadly supported. I hope this is a collective vision. We need to make real progress today. We'll work through today on the remaining issues. We are scheduling the next meetings for February 3 and 4. We hope that meeting will put the finishing touches on the collective outcome of the Work Group; we hope this is a centrist position. I hope we have sufficient support that we can control the outcome as much as possible OUTER WATERS Salmon Troll Open/15 yr eval + coop mgt. Halibut Open Open Open/15 yr eval Scallops Closed • Closed Closed/gear type Rockfish Open • Closed Open/species of concern coop plan Lingcod Open• Closed Closed-Gen type Dungeness Open• Open + Closed-Open/ 15 yr eval researchlre Tanner Open• 15 0 1-15 yer Eval Pacific Cod Open• (?) 15 yr coop plan Open -15 yr eval Black Cod Open• Closed Open-15 yr eval King Crab Open• (?) 15 yr coop plan Closed Excursion Inlet Open• 15 yrs under coop Open -15 yr eval Seine plan Shrimp Open• Closed Open -15 yr coop mgt Other No new fisheries No new fisheries No new fisheries . . GLACIER BAY PROPER Salmon Troll Open/winter Open/winter Open/15 yr evaluation Halibut Open/Lower Open/Lower Open/15 yr eval Tanner Open/Lower & mid Open 1/2 & mid bay Open/15 yr eval 15 yr eval Dungeness Open/mid bay & Open 1/2 to allow for Open/ 15 yr in Bay Beardslees study; historic proper participation 5-7 yr MADS study Other Fisheries w/ Closed Closed Dale Kelley. ATA Alliance: Handout talking paper; this is our current standing position; but here as part ofWG will work. After lunch we have something that will be able to relate to the flip chart table. We support fishing in the park under state management. In outer waters, we do not support any additional regulation. We do support limiting the fisheries to those currently regulated by the state and can agree to no new or expanded fisheries; there is not much chance anyway do to constrictions and limited entry. Inside waters we have asked for special consideration for BI to WW closures; For rest of inner waters, lets deal with individual fisheries. Always the biological concerns are number one. Supportive of sport fisheries-although NPS and Chip's proposals refer to those fisheries, we will not support. We do not represent scallop fishermen, there we defer tothe state Board and DFG. We support an environmental council made up of allinterest groups andmanagement plan for inner bay for approval by BoardofFish process. Perhaps Board ofFish needs to be kept up to speed but they tend to rubber stamp a cooperative plan brought to them by all affected parties. We do not support marine reserves; a lot of the problems are what are the goals and objective, what do they mean; are in national focus but if looking at managing special areas in special ways, we can discuss that but not comfortable with the term marine reserves and what that means. Jev: In terms of"marine reserves" and other issues, we need to get to the points and not on the abstract philosophical underpinnings of the concepts. Greg Howe: Could support a marine reserve as opposed to the formal Allied Fishermen position. Suggest a line farther north in Bay, line of latitude (58o 50 m) at mouth of Adams Inlet just north of Tidal Inlet and Muir Arm which would encompass the majority of existing fisheries below that line and could support a marine reserve. Below that line could support a summer closure such as May 15 through Sept 1. GLACIER BAY COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WORKING GROUP WORKSHOP Friday, January 9, 1998 Sponsored by ADF&G Introductions Ground Rules, Time frames -Keep focus on ideas, exploring ideas, options. Results of last meeting: Presentation of informtaion from ADF &G Greg Streveler's presentation Chip Denerlein's proposal Much work between the meetings -Denerlein's written proposal out, Greg refined his proposal. Rob: Thanks to Joe Emerson for hoochies Alaska and ADF &g not trying to dictating where to go, but here's where i think we are: Glacier Bay Consensus Points These meetings have become referred to as the consensus building portion of mtgs. Definition of Consensus -an opinion held by all or most. Hope that everybody agrees with me that the more people we have in agreement, the more control we have over our own destinies. Continue to believe that the best chance we have of building a solution that is stable is thorugh the consensus position. . I am reminded by many who have experience in Washington, DC that if we do not have a clear position, we will lose control of our destiny. If there is a vacuum, it will be filled. Political, that could be controlled by people who do not have best interests of the people of SEAK, or the resources in mind. Sideboards: • Cannot accept a resolution that gives up jurisdiction. • Definition of success: an approach that addresses all the key points of this issue (many not addressed until today) • an approach that recognizes the value of having marine areas where fishing does not occur, • and areas where fishing does occur. • Recognizes park values. • Incorporates local wisdom • Treats fishermen fairly. If so, park becomes a model for park management Rob's view is a Centrist position - His view that we have a critical mass that enables control over the outcome. Dave Hanson -would suggest the word "influence, rather than control". Ken (Hoonah) wrote in notes state's position and ? Explain compromise. State cannot accept an approach that compromises jurisdiction over Glacier Bay. The dispute may be decided in legal system What do you mean by submerged lands Park service cannot participate in consensus process, because we have a rulemaking going on. Discussion of marine reserves has been popular. Wanda Culp(?) Hoonah Native Assn. -Have jurisdictional questions/claims to parts of GB, too. Greg/Bart's Proposal: Greg: Two major premises: 1) All the major fisheries in the park must continue, including Bay proper. 2) Should be a major protected area in GB. Second option-as we looked at bay, saw several parts: 1) Lower Bay -managed like Icy Strait 2) Upper Bay--Core area unfished 3) Beardslees as special case-"mid waters lsely --No rational to restrict king fishery --Halibut most difficult --hope toaddress equity; adjust line manage ongoing t hrough line adjustment. Suggestion: line at Strawberry Leave sitakaday wide open or move north (boundary) --Tanner -easier to delineate; the bulk of population if Muir closed --Dungeness -toughest one, no ideas, but constraints that are viable: 1) convinced that dividing the Beards lees into pieces doesn't work. 2) summer fishery is the most conflicted of two when you think of park values, but fall fishery is tough for most people. 3) some portion of inner bay that has dungeness should be closed --does not have to be Beardslees. 4) middle bay should remain open, a small, but perhaps viable fishery would occur there. *In many ways the Dungeness fishery remains the lynch pin, if we can resolve, would work. Outer waters -ratifiy the statement that we got to last time -says that the salmon and halibut fisheries in outer waters are unconflicted and will continue as is. The other fisheries will have to be looked at. Except scallops -most fisheries do not seem to b conflicted, could be looked at with special management actions, such as for lingcod and rockfish. Bart -seems that b/c scallops are not that important, and trawling has impact on park, would consider dropping that. OUTER WATERS Salmon TroD Open Halibut open Scallops Closed* Rockfish Open. Lingcod Open* Dungeness Open* Tanner Open* Pacific Cod Open* Black Cod Open* King Crab Open* Excursion Inlet Seine Open* Shrimp Other Salmon Troll Halibut Tanner Dungeness Other Fisheries Open* C -No new fisheries Open/winter Open/Lower Open/Lower & mid Open/mid bay & Beards lees Dale: Allied Fishennen's position 1) ADf&G mgrnt of & support of fishery Open Open Closed Closed Closed 0 + C-researchlre 15 0 (?) 15 yr coop plan Closed (?) 15 yr coop plan 15 yrs under coop plan Closed No new fisheries Oenlwinter Open/Lower Open 1/2 & mid bay 15 yreval Open 112 to allow for study~ historic participation Closed Open/15 yr eval + coop mgt. Open/15 yr eval Closed/gear type Open/species of concern coop plan Closed-Gen type Open/ 15 yr eval 1-15 yer Eval Open -15 yr eval Open -15 yr eval Closed Open -15 yr eval Open -15 yr coop mgt No new fisheries Open/15 yr eval Open/15 yr eval Open/15 yr eval Open/ 15 yr in Bay proper 5-7 yr MADS study Closed 2) Outer Waters: open, no new fisheries, DOl always has oversight, some mgt. 3) Close WW. except for Dungeness fleet 4) Address conflicts. Always biological concerns # 1 5) Support subsistence with no restrictions. 6) Sportfish -not here tot alk to those; neutral 7) Gear & species -what's under current state mgt. 8) Defer to state of AK. 9) Support Advisory Panel & support that group 10) Do not support idea of marine reserve. do not know what this means. are open to options Greg Howe -fishennan speaking as individual -does support marine reserve, but perhaps from a line farther north Traibush -reads from handout of proposal. Deb Woodruff Presentation for Crabbers: 93% of Respondents said their visit to GBNP mostly or completely lived up to their expectations. (see Tina's notes) Ken Leghorn, owner of Alaska Discovery, runs concessionaire in GBNP: In 20 years, never had commercial fishing complaints from clients or guides. A non-issue for us. That's why we're not involved in this issue. We have been involved in other issues regarding wilderness values. Never been an issue with noise or otherwise. Support this process, and a solution that would accommodate all points of view (fishermen). Molly Ross -I have personally read complaints, some compelling, of complaints about wilderness values from Kayakers in the park Lunch break -working group continues negotiations Proposal for the beardslees-by Chip and Tom (see tina's notes) Halibut Greg Howe: Draw red line closing commercial fishing north of line Chip: (red) lines at Strawberry Island Jev: Not a line, but more a sequenee. Close off side inlets (not halibut producers anyway) lines in blue. Hoonah Rep -Comment on lines --from his historical experienee, as captain and fishermen. Like the lines, but as another option, notes most productive areas for halibut Bart's line: 40 degree line-black line-would not fish up above that line- Chip: Participated in cruise ship planning, agreed to cap at 2 per day and pollution minimization measures--NPCA is litigating w/NPS b/c someone jerked out pollution prevention measures after they agreed. Molly-for your proposal to be viable on a national stage, must consider values of the bay. Januarv ~. 1998 Meeu~g of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the Alaska Department ofFish and Game l:UO M1 Centennial Hall, Juneau Work Group Members Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska: Dale Kelley. Jev Shelton. Joe Emerson for Doug Ogilvy. Greg Howe sitting in for Paul Johnson, Tom Traibush Citizens' AdVIsory Commission on Federal Areas: Stan Leaphan Friends of Glacier Bay: Bill Brown Hoonah Indian Association: Ken Grant National Parks and Conservation Association: Ch1p Dennerlem SEAlaska Regional Native Corporation: Bob Loescher !absent] Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Ban Kohler (and Greg Streveler) Alaska Depanment of Fish and Game: Rob Boswonh Alaska Wildlife Alliance: Anthony Crupi Sierra Club: Jack Hession Dave Hanson convened the meeting at 9:00AM with a welcome to the January meeting of the Work Group. He ex:plained his role as facilitator for this state sponsored meeting of stakeholders as opposed to his work yesterday to facilitate the information meeting by National Park Service for its proposed rulemaking. This meeting is to discuss different options for issues involving commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, including the rulemaking and other options where there is common ground or understanding of a solution to the issues. Dave funher explained that at today's meeting, we're going to get into the nitty-gritty of what specific fisheries and management options might or might not work or might or might not be satisfactory to most panies for Glacier Bay park. As such this meeting will be much more discussion oriented. to explore and discuss options. We will also be doing a presentation by the Dungeness crabbers who fish in the Beardslee Islands. Dave read the statement ofPurpose from the Agenda for today's meeting: "Purpose: To review and discuss options for resolving Glacier Bay Commercial F1sheries Issues, to hear and consider Beardslee crab fishermen presentation, to consider mner bay opt10ns for halibut, salmon troll fishing and Tanner crab. and to cominue discussing consensus pomts" Dave added that we may also discuss some points for outer coast fisheries. Rob Boswonh extended his appreciation for e\·eryone's panicipation. He asked for an Introduction of the Work Group members (per above). He then Introduced Jim Brady, Superintendent of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and Molly Ross from the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish. Wildlife, and Parks. Rob explatned thetr role IS as observers during the Work Group meeting. Da,·e renewed the agenda and explained we· II go O\ er all the proposals and ideas before moving to specific fisheries. We'll begin that by d1scussmg 1dcas and options m the Inner Bay to start with. At II :00 we'll have the Beardslee crab fishermen presentation. Then there are a few considerations for the Outer Bay Today is the day to really talk about options and to talk about what might really work or not work. Let's minimize our positions and talk about \\hal mtght satisfy as many panies as possible. We have the usual ground rules of counesy and respect I know this consideration has gone on for years, and I want all of us to keep our focus on explonng on options and not focus on people or each other but on ideas and options. At the last meeting we went over several presentations on specifics of fisheries. Greg gave an example of a new approach to constder at the end of meeting. Chip Dennerlein gave some new ideas as a \Vay to look at alternatives. Between the December and January meetings, there has been lots of discussion by some of the panies who will be bringing up their funher options today. Rob Boswonh thanked the panic1pants and ex"Iended a special thanks to the observers and panic1oants who ha,·e tra,·eled far to oe here today. We appreciate Molly Ross and D:. Jim Bohnsack of Nauonal Marine Fisheries Semce. Allen Smith from the Wilderness Society; and orners. Dave asked for mtrodu::tions by the rest of the persons present: Judy Gottlieb (NPS Regional office). Mary Beth Ross (GBNPJ. Sally Rue (LT. Gov Office). Sally Giben iDi•; Gc Coord). Ranay King (GB"N'Pl. T1m koeneman CADF&G). Scan Marshall (ADF&G). DR (ADF&G). Dan Folley. John Qmnley 0\TFS Reg Office). Pat Phelan (GBNP). Bob Barbee (NPS Regional Director). Ken Imamura. Phillip Hr . Doug Woodby (ADF&G). Andy McGregor (ADF&G). Kathy Swiderski !Assistant Attorney Gener""· Dave Gaudet (ADF&G), Tom Charley (U of A), Chad Soiscth (GBNP), Bruce Weyrauch {Attorney for Alhcd Fishennen), Peter Org. Jim Taggen (GBNP). (Wanda Culp was recognized when she arrived later.) Rob announced availability of copies of the notes from the December meeting. If any corrections need to be made, please let us know. Later today we will have additional information in response to questions brought up during the Alaska Depanment of Fish and Game presentations yesterday. Staff will be spcakmg to those questions as those species of concern come up during day. Rob I would like to summarize why we arc here and where we are headed, as I see it. First I would like to make It clear that the State of Alaska 1s not attempting to dictate the outcome of this meeting This is intended to be a true stakeholder process. For those of you who haven't been here before, let me explain the approach we are taking to the issues of the National Park Service proposing to phase out fisheries. We are dividing the big issues into a number of smaller issues which we can deal with. which we refer to as the consensus points. What we mean by consensus is: "an opinion held by all or most". in other words. all or a majority hold the opinion. The more interest groups we have. the more weight with a position that is achieved, the more likely we ""'ill be able to control our own destinies. If there are a few hold outs. we are gomg to continue to move forward nonetheless. I believe the best chance we have of reaching a satisfactory and politically stable solution, is we need to keep working together here in Alaska. There is a big risk of this issue being taken over by politicians who are not really interested in the people of Southeast Alaska and maybe not even in the interests of the resources of the park. I'm consistently advised by people who spend a lot of time in DC that if this group goes back there. or through the rulemaking process. with no position or an overly general position. then we will give up a lot of control over the final outcome. If we leave a vacuum. it will be filled. So we need broad consensus to keep the broadest suppon possible. The issue of state jurisdiction is of tremendous concern to the state. As I've said before, we cannot accept an agreement that limits our jurisdictional claim. The state believes it owns the submerged lands and manages the fish resources Glacier Bay. This somewhat limits the options for settlement but it also makes legislation all the more appealing to reach solution. This does not mean rulemaking and legislation are incompatible. The definition of success includes: • an approach that addresses all the key pomts of this issue. many of which we will focus on for the first time; • an approach that recognizes the concept of reserve of marine areas where fisheries does nor occur; • recognition of the values of areas where fisheries do occur subject to world class research and management • an approach that recognizes and accommodates the resources and purposes of the park; • uses science to guide wise management and use decisions • an approach that uses local knowledge in fisheries and park management: • and an approach that treats fishennen fairly. This view is not shared by all in this room. but in my view, Glacier Bay National Park becomes a model for enlightened park management; that is politically stable because it has local suppon and management that is broadly supported. I hope this is a collective vision. We need to make real progress today. We'll work through today on the remaming issues. We are scheduling the nex1 meeungs for Februal}· 3 and 4. We hope that meeung v.ill put the finishmg touches on the collective outcome of the Work Group: we hope this is a centrist position. I hope we have suffiCient suppon that we can control the outcome as much as possible. Dave: The word influence is better than control: this is a very big process with a lot of players. includmg those natiom\ide, so hopefully any package will influence the outcome. Ken Imamura asked for clarification of the state's position. and about how the state can compromise. Rob clarified that the state cannot accept anything that compromises its legal claim. The state believes ,,c; have title to the submerged lands of Glacier Bay. That v.ill ultimately be decided through the legal system, but that does not provide a current conclusion to the issues, so we are trying to develop an approach that protects the various interests of the resources and uses of the park without compromising our issue of ownership. Kathy Swiderski clarified that the state claims 0\mership and management of the marine submerged lands and navigable waterways. Ken thanked them for the clarification. Molly Ross: Rob said it just right. How could the state do anything in there that impacts its jurisdiction in there? It would be an act against state interest to say otherwise. The reason this jurisdictional dispute is not an issue we are going to decide here, is that the federal government believes it has the statutO I}' authority to regulate fisheries and other activities that occur in the waters as well as ownership of the submerged lands. It is critical that we do something here together that gets beyond this because we aren't going to resolve it here. National Park Sen ice also cannot be part of a consensus process until the rulemaking process is over, but we respect this process enough that you can get some feel for how we feel about the progress and hope this v.ill be resolved here. Ken feared that we might spend hours here laboring over this, and thus would like some assurance that we don't come to a solution then have the state come forward and say "can't do". Joe Emerson: The discussion of marine resen·es has been very valuable in this group, but it does involve the jurisdiction of who controls this resen·e so is complicated to discuss this issue without the jurisdictional question. As an observer, I get into sticky problems of marine reserves like who is going to create it. Rob: This conceptually goes back to our 1996 positions. where we put together our list of state authorities that could be used to manage surface waters in Glac1e:-Bay. Our authorities are parallel to federal authorities; so we could adopt parallel regulations to accomplish as one model. Dave Hanson summarized that we can go forward with a concept then worry about how to implement it. Wanda Culp: In discussing the jurisdictional issue. consider also the Hoonah people feel they have jurisdiction in and around the park. We have an acuve tnbal government that could be active in resolving some of these issues. We are not trymg to assen claims over the state and federal authorities but with them. We are also talking about customal}· and traditional uses in subsistence and commercial fisheries in the bay. Our interests are as heavy. For example. regarding marine mammals--our native people could be instrumental in controlling populations; we could panictpate in a lot of areas of these disputes. Dave: Summarized the rest of agenda. He then asked Greg or Bart if they had any additional comments on the example they put up at the end of the last meeting? Greg: We were tl)ing to come up v.ith a way to think ne'w about Glacier Bay--new ideas and ways to think about the problem. Let's consider two premises as a start: (1) all the major fisheries in th~ park should continue in some form. (2) there needs to be a major protected area in the park-a reserve that works. Regarding this second premise, think of Glacier Bay as three pans: lower bay managed the same as Icy Strait; some combination of wilderness waters and other waters that are unfished: then. a third part that incmoes the Beardslees. middle waters. and drawing .. ;me somewhere m ;nere which need not be closed to fishing and there is a good rationale to continue. For example. we have never heard a rauonale that the Winter king salmon fishery should not continue. With regard to halibut. we hope that we can adJuSt the lower ba~· line so we can include halibut as ongoing fishery contiguous \\ith Icy Strait. Please consider a lme more or less at Strawberry Pomt that would leave the lower bay open to commercial fishing. There are some problems with the location of that line as the halibut fishery would be closed above that line. Tanner crab fishing 1s a little stickier. If Muir Inlet were closed to Tanner crab anc there is a fair population in Skidmore. that would be closed because n is designated Wilderness waters. ~ose are off limits, Tanner Crab fishing could continue in the middle bay which is key to the fleet as weL as the lower bay. Dungeness crab is the toughest. We have come up with some constraints. we've become convinced that dividing the Be.·dslee Islands does not work-it necus to be managed as a unit The summer fishery is the more cm~iicted of the two because of park purposes but hard to have a fall fishery that works for people; from the stand point of marine resen•e idea and park purposes. Some part of the inner bay needs to be closed to Dungeness aab fishing .. but it doesn't need to be Beardslee Islands. It is not the major part of the fishery, but the middle bay should remain open ·so th.:: a small but viable fishery can be retained. The Beardslee Islands seems to be the lynch. The Middle Bay is roughly up to Hugh Inlet. Jim Bohnsack did a great service yesterday in showing us how the concept of marine reserves can work .. We need to think a lot about the purposes of the reserve. because that will define the reserve. There is merit to having a set of small peices as well as one big piece; that will had up to something significant. We ratify the statement that was gotten to last time--salmon and halibut in outer waters are unconflicted and will continue as is. The other fisheries have to be looked at one of a time, but there may be some exceptions like scallc::>s within the park boundary where there is not a reason to close the fisheries on the outer coast but perhaps to agree to some special restrictions. The scallop fishery does not seems to be huge fishery and, because there seems to be some halibut concerns, we think there may be a reason to close it. Chip: First. do people have the paper I prepared? (Handout): We have talked about a lot of principles in these meetings. Rob summarized those the best I have heard. Here are the principles of the park, reality of fisheries management, and a discussion of conditions. There's a very specific management of the outer waters and the bay because it is all about fisheries management and consen•ation. This is a synthesis of fisheries information put together into a serious proposaL It is not a National Parks and Consen·ation Association formal proposal nor an environmental proposal. It is my shot at moving fonvard in good f;uth This is not a stalking horse in gamesmanship I hope that if you will look at it that you can change your mmds. We continue to learn things and change minds as this process moves. I do address the proposal related to the jurisdiction issue; there is a proposed cooperative research plan. It is my first cut to put together something by the Secretary and Board of Fish: because if the Board of Fish adopts, it is the fish regulations. if the Secretar: adopts it, then that also g1ves stability and long life. Dave instructed the Work Group to look at pages 3 and~ so we can do comparison to the Park Sen-ice's proposaL Randy Kmg offered to capsulate the key pomts of the Nauonal Park Service's proposed rule: (a) it recognizes the continuation of traditional fishcnes for 15 years in the inner waters; (b) commercial fisheries in the outside waters are allowed to conunue under a cooperative management process, but in the outside waters, gear types are limited so the regulations would preclude dinglebar (used to fish lingcod), dredges (used to fish scallops), and ringnets and divers (used to fish king crab), and in the outer waters is a 15 year phaseout with reevaluation. The ins1de waters woulrt be dosed after I 5 yc<lrs for all gear types, but during the interim, Dungeness Crab and Tanner Crab fishing would continue (except summer closure), as would longlining for salmon. Wilderness waters would be closed with the exception of the conduct of the multi·agency dungeness (MAD) study which would continue for 7 years. There are two proposed studies in the regulations: the MAD study of crabs is in the actual proposed regulations; and the study on halibut is in the preamble for comment but not in the proposed regulations-it involves closing above Strawbeny for the purpose of a halibut study. Lituya and Dundas E ''-:::;:also raised in preamble for comments but not in the proposed regulauons. The regulauons wowc ·· ' r· '"fisheries and no new gear types throughout the park. Dave :::larified Nauonal Park Servtce regulatory process for rakmg corr.r.~ rulemaking. Molly clarified that references to the "Preamble" mean all the prose tha: · it is imponant because we are seeking comment but is not in the actual pL Ken: It would be helpful to have a printout of the proposed rule in from cf :..:. we had a map that clarified outer and inner waters. Jev Shelton asked for a clarification of why the Service is targeting king c ·i"JsaL Youkno\\ ;:utatory language. ·; would also be helpful if Randy King explained they tried to protect the more significant fisheries lnve been a species of concern. Just tried to recognize gear types that have been usca :nc Jcv clarified the King Crab fishery has been curtailed by the State in recent years--it is a ic:. . ;a. Hg historical fishery. It is a matter of chance that it is more restricted right now, so it is iromc Ul:., ~uc:1 management to protect the fishery would result in a closure of a long term fishery because it is view:::d as an insignificant fishery now. Work Group members also offered some further discussion on the propos:: for being judged during recent history to have fished in the park versus tl> Service ex"Jllained the idea was to address those persons most dependent u;- ~ 1 0" years as criteria i he park. The .• 1 · :~ry now. Tom Traibush: The King crab fishery has been conservatively managed by m~ state and those some with historical participation are not being allowed to participate. As a consequen:e. the National Park Service (in the proposed rulemaking) is saying that those not fishing now would ··n2o; n:we a history" even though fished throughout the 60s and 70s! Dave Hanson: "We"(?) had Greg, Chip, and Randy put together a list as;: of the proposals before us, and are there any others who would like to a de approaches and on where what restrictions would apply? He reviewed th that the concepts are identified by those who presented the various optior: arc not formal proposals of organizations: Glacier Bav Proper: Bart/Greg Troll salmon Halibut open winter open winter open for 15 \T>' open for 1.5 :·- Waters onh t· open Lower Bay open Lower Bay Tanner Dungeness Other open Lower & Middle Bay open Middle \\ith exceptions Open w/excepts Glacier Bav Outer waters: open Lower & part of open for I: Middle for 15 yr; refugia Waters onl. Open Y2 of Bl for study open forl5 . identify participants & Bl open v Closed & Close Closed chaner boat concessions of the differences :r ;1s sug~ested 1" ''POsals, noting or. purposes-they ;:epr within Wilderness .,:: '.'.ith history .. ;,11in Wilderness ; ), i>iqOJy :. uy those history; '.1 :.tudy 5-7 yrs Troll salmon Open Open w/coop mgmt & studies Open fc ' :Jop mgmt w/state halibut Open Open Open for lj :· ._oup mgmt w/state scallops Closed* Closed Closed--not r:.: . · ::,:nitJ:d gear types rockfish Open* Closed Open but sp::. of concern; coop mgmt hngcod dungeness Tanner Pacific cod blackcod king crab Excursion seine shrimp other Open• Open* Open* Open* Open• Open• Open* Open• Closed-no new Closed Closed-not recognized gear types Open+ Closed area for Open forl5 yr; eval coop mgmt refugia and research Open with 15 :\.T coop plan Open \\ith 15 year cval: coop mf!mt ? 15 ~T coop plan Open \\1tn 15 year eva!: coop mgmt Closed Open w. 15 yr eval: coop mgmt ? 15 )'T coop plan Closed 15 )T coop pian Open \\1th 15 )T evaL ;:, 10 mgmt ?/Closed Open with 15 ~T eva!; covpmgemnt Closeino new fishenes Ctno new fisheries/gear types fisheries or gear or gear Various points of consideration regarding the above summary of the proposals: Chip: If there are fisheries which have come down D small runs and the state missed sensitive species management, then something could tnp coop management. Dale asked for clarification of closure versus coop management process working. When NPS talks about Excursion Inlet, does NPS claim jurisdiction? Randy: NPS only claims within where the boundary runs up the middle of the Inlet. The river is in the park. The proposed rule summer closure is tied to visitor use season May through September. except MAD study in the Beardslee Islands. Other parts of Glacier Bay proper would be closed to other fisheries. Dale Kelley: (Handout) We of Allied Fishermen are providing a talking paper; this is our current standing position; but we are here as pan of the Work Group, and as such we will work on evaluating all proposals. After lunch we have something that will be able to relate to the flip chart table. Let me summarize our key positions: (1) We support fishing in the park under state management. (2) In outer waters, we do not support any additional regulation. (3) We do support limiting the fisheries to those currently regulated by the state and can agree to no new or expanded fisheries; there is not much chance of that anyway due to constrictions of the fisheries and Limited Entry. (4) In the inside waters, we have asked for special consideration for Beardslee Island to not apply Wilderness Waters closures. (5) For the rest of the inner waters, let's deal with individual fisneries. Keep in mind that always the biological concerns are number one. (6) We are supportive of sport fisheries-although NPS' and Chip's proposals refer to those fisheries, we will not support such closures. (7) We do not represent scallop fishermen, therefore, we defer to the state Board offish and the Department offish and Game. (8) We support an environmental council made up of all mterest groups and a management plan for the inner bay for approval by the Board offish process. Perhaps the Alaska Board offish needs to be kept up to speed as we progress, but they tend to rubber stamp a cooperative plan brought to them by all affected parties. (9) \V e do not support marine reserves: there are aa lot of problems with the concepts such as what are the goals and objectives, what do they mean. Reserves arc popular in the national focus as a concept but if we are looking at managing special areas in spec1al ways. we can discuss that--but we are not comfortable with the term marine reserves and what that means yet Je\·: In terms of "marine reserves" and other issues. we need to get to the points and not on the abstract philosophical underpinnings of the concepts Greg Howe I personally could support a mannc reserve as opposed to the formal Allied Fishermen positiOn. But with lots of modifications For example, I suggest a line farther north in the Bay, a line of latitude (58o 50 m) at mouth of Adams Inlet just north of Tidal Inlet and Muir Arm which would encompass the majority of existing fisheries. Below that line all fisheries remain open as currently managed and then I could support a manne reserve. Below that line, perhaps I could support a summer closure such as May 15 through Sept I. Dave Hanson asked for any other general suggesuons in approach? Jack Hession: I am more than happ:· to commue to pamctpatc m the process. Jack reviewe<' ;1is. tmpresstons of fishenes m the 60s and 70s. Jey: From the fishermen's standpoint, we have a fundamental support for research. but research m the vague prospective fashion as has been proposed and as has been done should not be used as a tool for c10sure. The paruculars for rne specific needs and aestg.ns of the studtes is what 1s 1mponam and then rney can be supponed. Chip: First, we have evolved in management-the state is doing a great JOb. Secondly, I respect what Allied Fishermen has put on the table. but where can we go from here? I may be wasting myume here.-1 could accept these positions from the fishermen a couple of meetings ago, but I can't continue to panictpate if the fishermen can't support some closures of some fishenes. There are two timelmes commg up: (1) a hearing on legislation in Februar;.· and (2) comments due to National Park Sen1ce on thetr proposed regulations in :1>.1arch. We need to be movmg on each of the points. Dale: Let me clarify that throughout these meetings at any time we have identified gear types. we have never identified scallops. We do not represent those fishermen. Chip: On another of the fishermen's points, if we have a cooperative management plan. could Dale sell that as opposed to just state management? Dave interjected and summarized points covered so far: (I) let's focus on issues and move fonvard (2) scallops \\ill be a key agenda item, we'll get to nght after lunch. Let's clarified that Allied Fishermen has never advocated for (or against) that gear type or fishery; and (3) even though Allied Fishermen put out a paper of their positions, they are willing to consider changes on a fishery by fishery basis as building blocks. Their desire is the same as yours. Chip I'm going back to my Board nex"t week. so hopefully the fishermen can move so that I can report some progress to my Board. Dave announced a break from 11:00 to begin again promptly at 11:15 with the presentation by the Beardslee crabbers. Tom Traibush: Handout of Beardslee Island crabbers key points: We support the prior positions described that outer waters remain open. The posiuon IS as part of help to reach a "compromise" with NPS and State regarding Glacier Bay itself fHe went through the handout reviewing many items] Because the Beardslee Islands fisheries is a focal pomt. we are willing to discuss it but we support contmuation of all fisheries in the Bay. Deb Woodruff continued the presentauon NPS adnses us of a Consumer Report that 93% respondents rated their \isit to Glacier Bay as mostly or completely hved up to their expectations of the park. This is .. mcredible". Glacier Bay received a 93 score ratmg of "Excellent". Only 35 parks scored between 90 and 79. Acadta NP in Maine had its beaches rated as cxccllem by more than 60%, while commercial fishing and crabbing, scallops, fishing, and darning is allowed in the national park. Isle Royale allows grazing and commercial fishing. What are we doing right in this park?--There were no complaints received in quality of >isitor services. Where might we improve? We might want to deal with visitor expectations more so that they know what to expect so are not set up for disappointment. NPS needs to improve communications and friendlier relations with residents and users, e.g., mapping of concession routes, get local support for concession reform, including getting some money for fishery research; the park needs pollution studies because of sewage and fuel leak problems. Deb also had a page of jobs that are in the commurury that show how interconnected the industry is in the community, and how much tmpact there \\ill be when take away the crabbers. Deb identified the losses to Crabbers if the fishery is closed: Lifestyle--we are close to the area and others who are close to the park: (2) rradiuon. iustory. culrurai identiiicauon (31 stability m many local tmms especially Gustavus. but includes Pelican. Hoonah. Elfin Cove, Juneau. Petersburg. (.f) Livelihood-not just a job. Well developed business with significant startup costs: years were spent developing markets. net works, new markets; Knowledge and skills of our specific fishery and reg1on: and loss of abilitY for new jobs. Oni explamed how there \\ill be ouurugration of fishing effon to other areas affecc:::;; Dungeness fishers in both local and outlying reg-10ns (this is a third ranked most productive area in SE will have an effect throughout SE); Effects of limited access to economically viable fishing grounds; (5) Deb resumed with a detailed discussion of other impacts such as loss of access to state's healthy. sustainable/renewable resource: this is 1 of only 3 Dungeness grounds (eg .. suppons AK Airlines jets financially can justifY coming into Gustavus) (6) Possible discontinuation of AA jet service \\ith associated increased impacts due to increased small plane traffic between Juneau and Gusta\us; (7) loss of advertising of the bounty available to tourists; (8) loss of jobs; the skipper and crew are all often families; additional effects on processors and fish operations. effects on smokehouse; major effects on other businesses, effects on suppon members (9) lost diversification in the town; e.g., Pelican says 70-80% of their community's base is Commercial fishing, (10) Threat to family stmcture-over 70 local Gusta\1JS residents have been involved in at least 1 fishery, (11) loss to tourists, fisherman, businesses of sharing exposure to authentic Alaskan experiences of connection with real people, (12) State constitution mandates the continuation of fisheries-to sustained fisheries management so as to continue this use in perpetuity (13) loss to posterity, ability to pass on a legacy to your children and others; positive mentor relationships. There is stress under the combination of all these jobs being lost in the near future-stress on families. domestic violence. bankruptcy. moving. etc. We have assessed that the job losses have mulupiier effects: l job lost equates to 7 jobs Impacted. JeffHanman: Economist with DFG doing some studies; there is very little socio-economic information on some of these small communities. Deb: The professional work being done on this will be done in March so unfonunately it is not available. Ken: Alaska Discovery is a concession that does guided wilderness tours in the park. From the commercial kayaker position. we feel very much a pan of the Gusta\1JS community. Jn the 26 years we 'vc been there. we've never had a single guide or \1Sitor have a negative interaction or complaint about commercial fishermen. The commercial fisheries are not an issues for our guests which is why we are not involved as a stakeholder in this issue. We arc quite defensive of the wilderness "value" for our clients; we are very interested in the commercial tourism traffic. But commercial fishing has not been a problem for us. We actually find they are helpful to us for local knowledge and some of our commercial operators work for us during their "off" commercial fishing season. Maybe 1/3 of the kayak use in the park, we do (are the concessionaire for) in a year. includmg the east and west arms and Beardslee Islands. We do a lot in the Bay proper and a little in Dundas Bay. There has never been an issue with Commercial fishing so we are supponive of working out a solution that allows that to continue. We don't recommend a particular solution. Molly Ross: You have a very highly regarded reputation. but I have read kayaker comments that are critical of several aspects of the commercial fishery Ken responded that guides can set the stage for how a visitor reacts-those guides that know the commercial fisheries and how/what he says regarding the type of vessels can influence expectations and biases are based on that. · Deb pointed out several instances where the fishermen "caught" National Park Service staff planting negative seeds about commercial fishing and encouraging lobbying of congressmen. When brought to the auenlion of management. these inappropnate statements were discouraged in the future but it illustrates the problem. Deb returned the crabbers presentation: Regarding the Beardslee Island area. there is a willingness to work coooerativelv mth the State biologists and be internewed and to share observauons between gear groups. We're co~scientious of the Status of the resources: we'd like to put some effon into pon sampling like was done in Petersburg; NPS has done some substrata work. and we'd like that to be shared \\ith ADF&G, and then we can help provide some information to the biologists. The Stikme River flats and Beardslees are key, perhaps we should be doing some information shanng. We have a great concern over the fact that a dungeness study was gomg on for 5 years by NPS in the Beardslee Islands. but no mechamsm was set up for tag recovery from the fishermen.. The conduct of this study ·without communication ·with the crabbers illustrates the major rift with National Park Service staff we didn · t have in the past. We have a unique pot fishery rather than line fishery. so locals can handle it. We'\·e already seen our season whittled down as 6 weeks was already reduced in the summer to reduce contact \\ith kayakers; now pushing us more into late fall season. Kara: Glacier Bay Sea Kayaks also sent a letter to National Park Service on the proposed rulemaking-In 27 years, they have not problems or complaints from users regarding the commercial fisheries. Deb returned to the presentation: Outside boats making snail hauls we know aren't going to make it. The fleet needs the whole Beardslee Islands to be economically viable. Weather factors affect fathom of fishing and locations within the bay affect what the crab are doing; mobility of using the whole area is exremely imponant. Regarding markets: The two processors in Gustavus have a high standard related to condition of crab and handling so also get a higher dollar. Overall, we believe much could be resolved if we could have a more open door policy and dialogue with the .park staff. For example, in the past, there was a lot more floatplane traffic in the Beardslees and some conflicts were occurring with the crabbers, so we suggested a corridor system in placement of our buoys so as to provide a Right-of-way for aircraft; we dealt with the superintendent directly and the problems were substantially eliminated. Otti: It's a complex issue and the main thing I want to emphasize, is we all need to work together and our willingness to work on this issue illustrates our commitment. Dave thanked the work groups for submitting proposals on positions and Deb's presentation on the wide range of issues affected by the proposed closure of the Beardslee crab fisheries. Chip: Where do we go from here? How do we negotiate now. This is very valuable and I am looking forward to working with you on this. I agree with your observations; this is an issue of viability in the community. In going through the proposals. the pan about the Y2 closure which I put out in mine you say doesn't work-· OK I'm open to that. If it is not workable. then I'm willing to look at it and on determming the individuals who rely on th1s and have a set class of people. I agree that is a very valuable pan of the proposal. I didn't define that in mme and I agree that a process for defining that. The process you have for eliminating conflicts with other users-! agree. I agree with your buyout issue. and (fom clarified there is a loss of a permit when it is bought out) the method to reduce competition in other areas; The two-party willing seller option, I agree with. What I think the closure of some areas like Hugh Miller and Adams Inlet and sense of closing Seabrec(?) as a specific step is very valuable. I have concerns about the cornerstone issue of 50 years which you have proposed to allow current fishermen to continue. Are we talking about fairness to individuals<lr continuation of a tradition? Our group (NPCA) has a hard time with ongoing; I could sell fairness to people who are there now-the next generation concept I don't agree with, but could support ·with a 30-year say No transfer of the permit except within the immediate family concept within the finite number ofyears--1 agree with that; no other regs or restrictions other than Board of Fish I would like to add to for consideration-applying additional closure area to some line via a date step or additional area, I would apply to sport harvest. Nontransferrable to only family I agree. The buyout--is it a discounted cash flow over a number of years? Immunity from other regs and restrictions-! would amend by saying cooperative fishery management plan Jidopted by both NPS and Board ofFish. Greg: (1 1 Do the people in the fleet see any value to looking at some modifications to how the fishmg IS done there? We've heard complaints mciuding secondary operations such as ioud rad1os at mghts and can t see bouys: and (2) at the beginrung of the season. 2lot more boats start in with local boats sots kmd of a deroy penoa--could that be rectified so less dist.uroance? Deb: It wouldn't be hard to self regulate some agreement on behavior to reduce confliCt.> with tourists. As to question 2. if there is some kind ofbuyout that will reduce the number of people Ulere m the begiruung of th:: season, but consider that the National Park SeTVIce has its O\\'Il mechanical eqmpmem starting up at Ute same time too. Tom: As for restricting noise. it seems the generators at Bartlett Cove are just as much a part as a few· fishing vessels. Otti: I would like to exl'ress our willingness to work, we're getting into the nuts and bolts and we're clarifying our position. As we go through this, it may be too early to deal with every little thing. but as far as Chip's point addressing out-migration of fishermen. we're not just talking about money-there are other aspects of tmpacts and willingness to work on specifics. Bart: l appreciate all the time that has gone into the presentation. I would like to clarify my position that Adams, Rendu, and Hugh Miller are designated Wilderness Waters and should be closed. The Beardslee Islands have always been a special case and hard to deal with. The actual operation of the fleet has demonstrated an ongoing willingness to work on recognition of park values. As far as park expectations. Beardslee Islands are a designated Wilderness Waters and technically should be closed. I am not sure about the 50 year time line proposed by the crabbers: I agree with life tenancy but not sure how to deal \\ith this. In regards to the special deal for the Beardslee Islands, I hope there is some additional protection of park values such as a marine reserve or park waters in other areas. Bill Brown: Those of us who live in Gustavus are generally familiar with this, but this was a stunningly good presentation of the socio-e:onomic information that needs to be considered as well as the biology. I urge that whether we are considering the position of Friends of Glacier Bay or others, I urge that within our own group and other minds and hearts of people in this room, this soci-eoconmic-biological relationship carry a lot more weight than it has because of the spin-off's and multipliers that have been brought up. Whatever happens affects real work by those who actually participate in the fishery. It would be good if we could continue that relationship. Chip: Maybe call this a cultural fishery and set standards added to the plan as a way to do it. When do we get ume to sit do\\'Il and negotiate among just the Work Group members? This way there could be a permit with special stipulations that address behavior basics: I'm going to add this to my paper. Tom: The last time Molly was here. we didn't get past the outer waters. We need to be working on inside waters Dave. We're trying to work on building blocks of several pieces, doesn't mean the other pieces are in place, this lends itself to a small work group that could ·work on this over lunch. Dale: Seems like we're being separated into smaller groups where we need to consider fishing in the Inner waters as a whole. Dave: Regardless of how you put it together, you still need to work on the pieces. I am suggesting that a smaller group talk about the Beardslee Islands and come back to the larger group. Chip: I'm at a point where I am willing to take a risk; I'm not holding you to this deal; we'll not think it is bad faith if you change your mind. Discussion by Dave. Dale, Chip, and Molly m which all agreed that everyone feels uncomfortable but taking risks is important here. All agreed there ts no commitment but working toward a suggested package to hope to live \\ith. Peter Org: It's pretty hard to placate a small group \\-ith a 50 year continuation while others are facing a 15 year phase om which impacts me significantly and r m not bemg placated. Jack Hession: I have a question for park staff or Moth·. Ordinarily buyouts apply to property rights. Are there instances wherem purchases that are not propeny rights have been made? Molly. This is not a buyout in the sense of a property right; we are talking about economic incentives of whar would be fair. It would require appropriated monies and legislation. The 6 permits that are closed out right away as these are in Wilderness Waters, we are trying to find whether there is a way to be fair to these individuals. We are interested in these discussions to determine what is fair: Jack is right that we have to be sensitive that there will be a great concern that this will be perceived as a property right in current programs such as ESA. We're in dangerous straits uying to negotiate what is fair. Rob: Fleet reductions through permit buy-backs have become more frequent in other locations as recognized in a chapter in the Magnusun Act. Dale: Property rights do include Limited Entry permits and IFQs that are affected by this. Tom: If the Beardslee Islands are a designated Wilderness waters, then one of the intents could be a cultural area could include Hoonah residents as well as conunercial fishing. Tom summarized his areas of closures and openings again; research would be conducted in Seabree area. Otti: Life tenancy was a carrot given to us in the last meetings, but we haven't been able to define it and it doesn't address out-migration and our investments. We tried to put a number on it. Dave Hanson suggested a work group to put together some type of statement to narrow this down and bring back to the group after lunch: He proposed the group be Chip, Otti, Tom, Bart, Ken, Bill, Deb, and perhaps Dale? Ken: Please clarify that this was a presentation not a negotiation session. I have a lot to add for consideration over all the fisheries m Excursion Inlet. Dave asked all to agree to work until 5 PM and the small group will meet over lunch and try to get back together with a suggestion. Lunch break 12:45 until 2:00PM: Reconvene 2:15 Dave Hanson: Over lunch a small work group considered some options which Greg and Otti will report on. What they came up with will be put up and g1ven a brief time for clarification, but then the members of the Work Group can work on it before the February meeting. After Otti's report, we \\ill work on scallops then halibut in inner bay. The small group's product is as follows: Otti: We listed Tom's position (in his handout) (which NPS said was unacceptable); Chip and Jack would not support a change in the Beardslee Islands' designation as Wilderness, but possibly would support taking it to their boards to allow commercial fishing in the Beardslee Islands through legislation as long as it would not set precedence for others under the Wilderness Act. The Beardslee Islands wi.ll not be split, but kept as one unit. It was agreed that another area would be closed to crabbing to compensate for the Beardslee Islands being left open. Regarding phase outs: Tom's proposal was for 5('1 years, NPS' was 5-7 years. Chip said 30 \\ith the initial 10-year period it could be sold; permits should be associated with the Bay--should not rru...::-Jte out mto rest of fisheries in AK. On one assignment the closed area. didn't establish the line for the closure. As for the buyout. NPS and State can't negotiate: as the stakeholders we also can't pick who and how a buyout would work. We need to sit down and say what ::1 buv out program would be that NPS and state could agree to as pan of the program. ( 1) who would qualify and {2) what could consistent of a buyout, such as replacement. None of the rest of the packa!!e can really be agreed to until this pan is worked out. Bart clarified that Wilderness Waters would e\·entually be totally phased out but could continue as part of this agreement through the research option available in the Wilderness Act. Rob clarified for the group that we'll try to get through as many of these today as possible and get them out for everyone to have and consider before the February meeting. Anthony asked Molly to clarify how NPS can move forward with regulations in light of the appellate coun decision prohibiting commercial fishing activities in Wilderness Waters. Molly clarified: The crab study begun 5 years ago for infonnation on crabbing related to Wilderness management is providing information that is valuable to us and the study is not intrusive. \Vho takes the crab is the next question~ a commercial crabber is appropriate. We would have to look at what is proposed here to see if it is something we can do or will it take additional legislation. I don't have the answer for that. We will evaluate whether there is any genuine reason that we could do the proposal here under the Wilderness legislation? Otti announced he is subbing in for Tom who had to leave. Dave: now we'll review Halibut in the Inner Bay: Greg Howe clarified the line he had proposed for a marine reserve of everything being closed north of the tine 58o50min. Chip drew additional lines that have been proposed on the map. Jev e>>plained difference in areas for fishing values versus recreational values-most of the commercial fishing goes on in the major corridors of the bay and not the peripheral and terminal areas of the bay and arms; the large vessel traffic follow the main inlets and are the most visible disturbances to the area which correspond with the bulk of the fishing-so we suggest not a line defining the entire bay and without treading on Dungeness crabbing and on Wilderness waters would be to look at excluding the main side inlets and upper ends of the arms excluding Bird and not including the Dungeness fishery. The upper part of Tar and Muir Inlets is interesting, as referred to wilderness water designations considered in the late 1980s. At Sealcrss Rock and another at Pt McCleod or say going from Reed Inlet up to Russell Island then across. This would keep fishing where traditional with the least tmpact on visitors but w0uld exclude very productive areas above those hnes and provide some significant restrictions on a fishc:-y (not a phase out). This leaves other areas open under currem management. Albie mentioned a dichotomy that something to consider is that if fishermen are going to be displaced out of there while large intrusive cruise ships are still allowed; we don't want to force them out but would reduce the appearance of unfairness. Dave asked if there are any other concepts which would leave pan of the Bay open to halibut fishine. Ken: 1 fully support lev's conceptual approach and want to modify the lines, as another option but from my e~;perience as a halibut fisherman the most historical harvest came from Geekie Inlet across West Ann. keep Jev's line in East Arm. Bart: I'll draw another line on the map just for point of discussion at 40o line-this line keeps 40% of the bay's halibut fishery as reported. Chip: Whatever the lines are, a plan to fish forever in most the Bay won't get sold to my Board. Whatever the biological concepts are! Jev and Clup discussed the jurisdictional dispute. Chip: My constituents want the bar to come do\\n in the lower bay sometime in the nex1 15 \'ears. Biological reason 1s there are concentrations up m rne mam pan of the bay. bemru;:: en\1ronmem is mor~ dtverse, so halibut may have full life cycle. (He drew lus hne on for closure of Tanner) Agree \'.ith Albie's point on crwse ships as we wanted an absolute cap of2iday crwse sh1ps. studtes. and other pteces wtuch were pulled out of the finallegislauon. Dave asked for clarification of halibut line because of relationship to cnuse ships. Chip explained that there are some real refugia reasons for having the mid bay closed and leave the lower bay open. He proposed a line at Strawberry Island to close evetjthing north of there. but if gomg north of there to Whiloby Island line for other fisheries then going back down to Beardslee area for halibut line. Some discussion followed of halibut sampling reponed yesterday and how the fishery proceeds by Jev related to location of line and how it will work or not. Chip also discussed the values of science and other purposes and values related to commercial ex1raction. Chip asked if commercial fishing is going to end at the Bathemetric line sometime say 15 years. Greg asked if north of that area some areas Uflfished and others selectively fished. Chip argued back that refugia loses value if partial take. Jim clarified that it depends upon your goals but from a pure emperical point of view, a reserve would be a no-take zone. So chip clarified he would rather have a line "forever" down sometime instead of a line that moves. Chip explained how he needs to sell a position to his Board nex1 week. Greg: I researched this question of marine reserves quite a bit. The marine reserve as Chip is proposing it would be the biggest one in North America. What Ban and I are trying to get to like Greg Howe proposed is a series of small reserves that have great fisheries of science and ecological value. (Jim Bohnsack confirmed the value of this approach) This gtves us a system that protects a lot of concerns of people who are in the room. Molly confirmed that Chip will have a fight to get this through NPCA. We already made a concession on the outer waters and the Bay's closure is what was important so we were trying to soften the harm that each person was going to suffer as this area was closed. As you are talking about giving up portions of the Bay. the contex1 is wrong, for it to be viable on a national stage it will have to be for more than science or benefit to fisheries; it is also for the plants. the species who cat fish. and to study all these things. Dale On one hand we are being told about p:uk \'alucs. but when argue about science and research potentials. recall that there is no problem \nth the resources at this time. I would also remind you that nobody 1s more influenced by what happens here than the people that we represent in the communities. their families. and related persons She then asked for clarification of the lines. Dale asked Chip if his proposal (including closures m outer waters) wasn't different than the tentative consensus that the group had agreed to on outer coast fisheries during the November meeting. He admitted that he had changed his mmd and posnwn regarding the earlier agreement. He explained his changes egarding sablefish and scallops tn outer coast after the presentations but halibut and salmon would remain in perpetuity on outer coast and allow some to continue in the lower pan of the inner bay. Jack: From the point of view of the national park system, leaving aside the concept of marine reserves, the optimum line is drawn across the mouth of the bay. But we need to be fully engaged in a compromise process. Bart: Let's clarify that we have agreed that there is a possibility of part of the bay being closed to halibut fishing, \'.ith a range of options that various people have agreed to. Jev: We need to all e).:pwre the set of potenual advantages to the various approaches. Agree with Greg that there 1S an awful lot of value to having a senes of reserves and the 1ssue should be a d1s:ussmn of what those spots do provide and what tnev do provide for the various user groups who are present here to satisfY their interests. This corridor concep: .,f fishery will actually mcrease confltct of users rather than reduce. We need to keep that idea open. Bart: When this idea of a travel corridor first came up that my notion of how b1g that was a lot smaller than but if you equate tlus to development in other parks, counting the cru1se shms as a maJOr mtruswn. then they would only look at the west ann. Dale asked for Jack to clarify his statement about compromise. Jack explained that when we start dividing up the Bay proper, there are problems: we're willing to consider the special circumstances of the Beardslee Islands but willing to suppon some phase out in the Bay Our position is very similar to the National Park Service proposed regulations, there are a couple of things we'd do differently i11 a few of the fjords but we suppon phase out in the Bay and a reevaluation of all fisheries includmg outer coast in 15 years. Break 3:50. Dave: I talked to ever interest group at this table. Scallops take less than 1% of their catch from park waters. Is there any objection to the statement that scallop boats should remain outside park \\'aters to fish? Hearing no response Dave concluded there was consensus. Bill Brown: We're dealing with conflicting absolutes, and we are at a point, I sense impending doom. I think in the terms of traditional local cultures on one hand and traditional national parks on the other, separate and distinct as they are, we're never going to overcome these absolutes. I think it wonh trying to step up. It may disintegrate based on how things have developed over the last hour and a half or so. If two basic antepodes of our discourse, can we step up to a new plateau of discourse that we can on a fairly balance mold on park values and and other values in the region. Is there a way? Say at the end of a 15 year phase out. we have dashed lines instead of solid lines, where we can have room for real compromise under present law and present disposition that preserves a national park but keeps a local. dependent group of people who have fished here. If not, it is simply a power struggle that will be special legislation likely negative for all people and the park included. Then vetos. then regulations, then litigation. We need to find a way to put these two things together. Dave: There probably are a lot of things we can agree on. There are a lot of ways that we can discuss these things. Deb: We need our breaks so that we have time to consult with people and get clarification on issues. Rob reiterated the need to discuss options as we just got to. Realize that we are not going to come to agreement on all of these today. We'll get through what we can and put all options out for discussion but have until nex1 meeting to let the ideas geL Joe: Keep in mind that these lines are political lines. not biological lines. We should have reservations on how and where we draw lines that have biological impacts. Tanner Crab: Ban and Greg drew two approximate areas for boundaries of their proposal. Chip then drew a center area in the lower pan of bay of which the purtion of concentration of tanner crab as unexploited and pan of area open for a while. Under NPS regs, everything is open for 15 years. Albie explained how putting all 20 crabbers in a small area and notoriously bad weather conditions will result in accidents and problems with pots on the bottom. I don't want to talk about time periods and phase outs~-just lines. Acmss the mouth of Muir Inlet and biue mouse cove to Tidal Inlet. There IS some histoncal large harvest north of tlm area. Geeke inlet 1s imponant to us but the stocks that hve m Geeke are protected half the umc because often the tcc comes out so far we can't fish The area south of the Beardslees the udes run so hard we can't fish there. We fish m the w1nter. we don·t even want to be there so no conihct.s with other users R.egaramg 15 year phase outs. there is really only about 20 boats that ftsh in the bay and another 40 that fish m Icy Straits-there is only 80 pemuts in all of southeast. Was surpnsed to hear from .t-.'PS about the 15 year phase out being based on fishing 6 years out of 10 years. We went through this w1th the IFQs a few years ago. We bought our way mto these fishenes at a great expense. The wa~· we fish IS to fish different areas each year. not m the bay each year, so new paructpants don't qualify even though we already took most of the losses on the IFQs. The older paruc1pants also got granted more pounaage under the IFQs. The flats m front of Hugh Miller outside the Wilderness destgnations. we Just took a 20% cut m the number of pots we can fish and the Board is considering a funher reduction. We're also do\\n to i days throughout southeast Alaska. NPS seems womed about all 80 boats ending up in GLBA. There arc basically only 3 strong areas for fishenes in SE and the way the state manages this. that is not a concern. Dave reminded everyone we all represent different groups with valid positions. Everyone is domg then best job to represent their group and encourage everyone to not take this personal. Dale initiated a discussion of the Work Group on how lines and presentations are going to be handled for the record. Rob clarified that we need to be really explicit about what was discussed for the record but the input will be by individuals not by groups. Albie confirmed that too. So did Chip. When we are ready to develop positions on lines across the bay. we '11 do it but these are just suggestions for consideration, not group positions. Albie asked about historic participation, staung for Molly that fair treatment. needs to be fairer than as _proposed in the regulations. Molly confirmed she understood that the grandfathering is not really fair. Chip asked--in Tanner Crab, (1) the fleet moves around. in last couple of years, about 60% of the fleet had fished in the last few years. Albi, no not that high, is out of GLBA Icy straits area of harvest, not of fleet. (2) Asked if the latest set of maps , if draw line at Geeke, lose a little bit in West Ann Hugh Miller complex: virtually all the other concentration areas arc f1shed. Dave clarified that the map is for concentration areas but doesn't necessarily represent all the fish populations areas. This is not even a complete picture of concentration areas. and the concentration areas change. Greg: let's put together a working commlltee that comes up with a list of goals of a marine reserve before the nex1 meeting. Goals for sphtung producuon areas versus separate discrete populations that need to be decided before dra .... ing lines. Jev: These fisheries are stable: there are not huge Impacts on stocks that cause the fishermen to move. This IS bnnging up ogres that don't rea II\ ex 1st Chip: Crab fishery overall has been fairh stable 111 SE but the overall concern I have is the history lone term of crab is wide swings in harvest m areas Th1s causes localized depletions. Is this the best data we have or not? King Salmon -winter in the inner bay Dale explained that the king uoll fishery 1s open m the summer as well. Randy explained the NPS wants an open winter fishery only, and the proposed rule allows fishing by people with historic panicipation for 15 years, but only open in winter. · Dave: So a separate topic of trolling m sununer needs to be talked about in the future So what are our options regarding winter fishery.: Chip: could be open under cooperative management plan. Allied fishermen supponed it remaining open. Dave Hanson asked if there are other areas, seasons. information that needs to be consid::red. Should we trv to break up the bay'.' Greg had put up a line that closed pan of two arms to ex'traction including winter troll fisher:•. Joel: It might be better to suppon park values by allowing the troll fishery to continue because the majority of the fishery are hatchery fish. And so long as those fish are swimming up the bay. you never have a natural ecosystem. Chip: There is a concern b\· the environrnentaJ community for a number of reasons. this is not a natural fish, provides some seasonal opponunity. some line in which there is aJso no recreational fishery either. There is a line to get at a winter king troll fishing. Otti: asked if those criteria on traditional fishermen apply to the winter troll fishery as well. DaJe: asked for clarification of Chip's proposaJ of the winter king saJmon troll fisher\ · Chip aJso thinks that there is precedence concerns. Dave: We'll try to get out a set of maps with the lines with some idea of what they mean. There have been some recommendations that we have an ex'tra day set aside for the next meetings so the work group can meet for two days. Rob: We will be very explicit about our schedule and agenda. The meeting on Februar:• 3rd is NPS socioeconomic meeting and research; 4th and 5th will be this work group. One idea is work groups could meet on 2"d; Brady suggests that the NPS dungeness and economic reports may only be a half day. Ban: What are your expectations for the Work Group outcome, given that the hearings are corning up February on the legislation? Rob suggested the Work Group draft testimony sometime the third week of February for the Murkowski hearing. I am confident that the senator will invite this Work Group to be pan of the panel. Ban: I realize that the individual groups \\;ll be doing testimony versus what the Work Group submits. Discussion followed about whether or not the Work Group is going to be able to do group testimony. Chip: My hope is that we couJd testify on a proposaJ that is substantive. My other hope is that we could respect each group's discussions, that Dale could accept Chip's lines and species management approach. My third point is that this is a test for all of us: don't do any legislation now; we are committed to this \\'Ork grou~if we are committed but not ready to draw lines. then that we should stay together. Chip if this is everyone's agreement then I will get on the plane next time. Dave: we need more discussion on this but we're out of time. The Meeting adjourned at 5:30PM. • • • • • • • -• • I I ._ .. • • •• I • I • • I I I • .. -. • __. I, • I • • • I • • ._ -._. • , • • • • • • I .. • .. • • I • • _. • • • .. • • • • . - • • • • .-L.. _I • • • • • • • J • • • •• .. • • -. • • -_. •• -I 1.-• • I • rJ .-. -• .. ... • • • • Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Working Group Facilitator Observations February 1, 1998 Draft The following observations are made regarding the results to date of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay. The observations indicate the facilitator's perception of key areas of general agreement, close-to-agreement, and non-agreement. The purpose of these facilitator observations is to encourage a common understanding of where we are and to set a direction . for additional discussion. The statements which are presented without qualification represent general consensus or agreement points. However, these statements do not represent a final position for any individual participant and any final positions will be contingent upon the acceptability of a complete package. It should be noted that the National Park Service (NPS) of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) is engaged in a rule-making process for Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries and thus is not a member of the work group though NPS and DOI representatives have been present at meetings to provide information and gain understanding of work group concerns and areas of agreement. Geographic fisherv management discussion areas: Discussions regarding commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park have referred to three geographic areas regarding marine waters within Park boundaries: outer waters, wilderness waters, and the inner bay. During the working group meetings, discussions of inner bay waters have referred to four sub-areas: lower bay, middle bay, upper bay, and Beardslee Island area. General consensus point: There will be no new or expanding fisheries in the marine waters within the Glacier Bay National park boundaries. OUTER WATERS Outer Waters: Area description -the marine waters within the Glacier Bay National park boundaries along the outer coast from north of Cape Fairweather to Excursion Inlet not including Glacier Bay proper (the inner bay or the marine waters north of a line between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus) . 1. The present fisheries except for the fisheries noted in numbers 4, 5, & 6 below/ remain open in perpetuity/ subject to review of the objectives defined in a cooperative management plan on a regular basis. 2. The present Excursion Inlet salmon seine net fishery remains open in perpetuity subject to review of the objectives defined in a cooperative management plan on a regular basis. 3. Management of these fisheries (noted in 1 and 2 as well as other fisheries which will remain open) continues by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and/or the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) process under terms of a cooperative management plan. It is understood that the fisheries for migratory salmon and halibut are appropriately managed and do not pose specific concerns in this area. In the event the management system for any species does not respond to a grave concern involving park purposes and resources, the Secretary may exercise federal management authority to address problems, subject to specific and other biological criteria. · Identified species of concern will require special management attention. 4. Commercial scallop fishing should only take place outside the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Allied Fishermen remain neutral on this point. 5. Interest group representatives have not yet agreed on whether the following outer water fisheries should be open or closed: sablefish, rockfish, ling cod, and dungeness crab {closed area for research). 6. Some interest group representatives feel the small fjords (Dundas Bay, Cape Spencer to Boussole Bay fjord complex, and Lituya Bay) should be commercial fishery phaseout areas. WILDERNESS WATERS Wilderness Waters: Area description -marine waters located in designated Glacier Bay National Park Wilderness areas. 1. Wilderness waters are closed to commercial fishing (but see Beardslee Island area below) . ?'-11~ ~ct w OMt.~·cft·J i'>4Wc? t:.a.tk 1 -/1v:~ /,(, ~":r""'-1\,f ~-INNER BAY WATERS Inner Bay Waters: Area description -marine waters located in Glacier Bay proper including the marine waters located north of a line between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus. Discussions of inner bay waters have generally referred to four sub-areas: lower bay, middle bay, upper bay, and Beardslee Island area. Lower Bay: Area Description -marine waters located north of a line between Point Carolus and P.oint Gustavus and south of an undetermined line (recent Streveler and Brown proposals respectively define it as a line between Strawberry Island and the west shoreline of the inner bay or Rush Point and Young Island.) and excluding the Beardslee Island wilderness area. ~ H-W 01 t'\iJ f p\.A:5 ~ ~ ~6. 1 . Though it has not been agreed to by some stakeholder.s, most feel that the lower bay is an acceptable area of Glac~er Bay proper to be open to existing commercial fisheries (at least part of the year) . l;ti~J.¥X..'~~-015-- V/iW~~-·~ 2. Interest group representatives have not yet determined the location of the northern boundary of the lower bay. 3. Interest group representatives have not yet determined whether a summer fishery closure should apply to the lower bay if it is open.to winter fishing. Middle Bay: Area description -marine waters located between the upper bay and lower bay of Glacier Bay proper. Though the boundaries have not yet been determined, the recent Streveler and Brown proposals respectively lo~ate the middle bay southern boundary as a line between Strawberry Island and the west shoreline or between Rush Point and Young Island, and the northern boundary as a line across the west arm north of Tidal Inlet and the east arm between Caroline Point and Garforth Island ~ as a line across the west arm from the north side of Geikie Inlet to Tlingit Point and the east arm from Caroline Point to the east shoreline north of Garforth Island. The middle bay does not include the Beardslee Island wilderness area. 1. Most interest group representatives feel it is acceptable to continue the winter king salmon troll fishery in parts or all of the middle bay. The National Parks and Conservation Association {NPCA) remains neutral on this point at this time. 2. Many interest group representatives feel it is acceptable to continue the winter tanner crab fishery in parts or all of the middle bay. 3. Views are more diverse regarding the continuation of the halibut, dungeness crab, king crab, and gray cod fisheries in parts or all of the middle bay. Upper Bay: Area description -marine waters located in the east and west arms of Glacier Bay or some portion of such waters yet to be determined. The recent Bart/Greg and Brown proposals respectively locate the southern boundary of the upper bay as a line across the west arm north of tidal Inlet and east arm between Caroline point and Garforth Island or as a line across the west arm from the north side of Geikie Inlet to Tlingit Point and the east arm from Caroline point to the east shoreline north of Garforth Island. 1. Though it has not been agreed to by all stakeholders, it is generally felt that all or part of the upper bay is an acceptable area to be closed to existing commercial fisheries in perpetuity. 2. Interest group representatives have not yet agreed on the southern boundary of the upper bay or the boundaries of the marine waters to be closed (if the two definitions differ). Beardslee Island area: Area description -the marine waters in the vicinity of the Beardslee Islands which fall within the Glacier Bay National Park Wilderness boundary. 1. The commercial dungeness crab fishery should be phased out of the wilderness waters of the Beardslee Island area as opposed to being immediately closed. 2. Interest group representatives have not agreed upon the length of an appropriate phaseout period for the dungeness crab fishery. 3. Most interest group representatives feel an acceptable alternative to a phase out period would be a voluntary buy-out option available only for a short period of time. The length of the shorter buy-out period has not been determined. 4. The buy-out option would likely be implemented as part of a fishing fleet reduction approach that does not imply a purchase of property rights. 5. Purchased dungeness crab fishing permits would be retired so as to not cause increased competition in other crabbing areas. 6. If a crabber is bought out, the individual should be ineligible to hold a new dungeness permit for five years. 7. Dungeness crab fishermen eligibility requirements for participating in either a phase-out or buy-out still need to be determined. Such eligibility requirements would take into consideration an individuals his~ory in the fishery. 8. Closing a significant portion of the Beardslee Island crabbing area during the phaseout period does not leave a viable fishery for the current fishermen depending on the Beardslee area as the core of their dungeness crab fishery. {During phaseout, crab take levels must reflect available stock.) Cooperative Management/Advisory Boards: 1. The approach and applicability of a cooperative management plan or actions and the use of an advisory board needs to be addressed in greater detail. JAN-29-98 THU 10:15 BRAKEL/STREVELER 907 697 2287 A REFINEMENT OF OUR IDEAS FOR A MIOOLE GROUND SOl...UllON ON THE QUESlfON OF FISHERIES IN GLACifR BAY PROPER Bart Koehler and Greg Streveler 1/29/98 mtRD DRAFT THIRD DRAFf INTRODUCTION This next stab at defining middle ground begins from the ideas put foreward by us tn a 12/9/97 paper entitled "Elaboration of a Possible Positron on GB Inner Waters t:'isheries". It attempts to modify those 1deas according to positions and information presented at the most recent stakeholder meeting New elements presented will be labelled according to the the person or group mo>t tdP.ntifi~?d with thP.m in our r+:>r.oll~=>r.tion. We keep the focus on what fisheries should continue where, and add some thoughts on objectives for various management untts. We don't address questions of management planning, an advisory group, or Fed/State responsibilities and prerogatives. These concepts have been pretty well hashed out in the past, however, and shouldn't block consensus if we can get other things settled. GLACIER BAY GENERALLY ObJectives 1 ~Create a Marine Protected Area (MPA) comprising most of Glacier Bay that meets spec1fic scientiftc and park objectives (as given under MPA components, below). 2 Maintain all major fisheries now active in Gl<3cier Bay in a viable form, to the maxrmum extent compatable with obJective 1. 3 -Provide for the equitable termrnation of any fisheries, or portions thereof, that are not compatable with objective 1 : prohibit new fisheries or gear types. 4-Build 1n flexibility to MPA design & management to accommodate new informatton. 5 -protect wilderness, recreational, cultural and educational values Geographic Divisions We en•Jision the Bay as comprised of tliree management categones(see below for proposed boundaries): -A port1on of the lower Bay, which wm be considered part of "outer waters", and managed accordingly . Most stakeholders seem to accept the lat1tud~ of Strawbeny Island as the limit of outer waters. The upper Bay and portions of the middle Bay, whtch will become no-take areas, closed to all forms of consumptive use -The middle Bay special management area, in which selected ftsheries will continue in a form complementary with the no-take areas. The Upper and Middle Bay taken together will be managed as the "Glacier Bay Marine Protected Area". P.02 JAN-2~-~B THU 10:14 BRAKEL/STREVEL~~ 90( 697 2287 THE GLACIER BAY MARINE PROTECTED AREA NO-TAKE. AREAS Objecttves : 1 -perpetuate natural ecosystem processes, biodiversity, population structure and density 2 -provide opportunities for research benef1tt1ng f1shenes and marine ecosystems 3 ~ to the extent compatable With 1 &2, provide recruitment reservoirs for harvested spec1es Design criteria : 1 -include a full range of G!ac1er Bay marine habitats 2 -include populations or concentrations of all marine species 3 -establish manageable boundaries Recommended actions: 1 -install baseline and monitonng stud1es 2 -buy out any fishing permits for which fishing rights are terminated, so they don 1 t stack up in other SE Alaska fishmg areas [Otti] 3 -exclude all fishing (ihcluding sport fishing [Chip; Greg Howe in part]) Ar~as to be Included: 1-Wilderness wat:ers ·Adams, Hugh Mtller, Rendu will be closed to f1shmg immediately [stakeholder consensus] ·Beardslee Islands, We see no viable way to keep the fishery open in perpetuity, given Wilderness waters status and extreme reluctance [Jack, Chip, Bill and NPS] to trade the Beardslees for other wilderness. On the other hand, fishermen are equally reluctant to close this important fishery. They belreve that subdiViding the Beardslees woti 1t work. We conclude that the only viable solution is to close the f1shery after a prolonged phaseout [Chip suggests 30 years] or buyout. Th1s solution may also apply to the Dundas wilderness waters. 2 -Upper arms of the Bay Muir Inlet complex down to Muir Point (move Greg Howe's line southward to take in the whole Muir basin and a concentration of Tanner crab] -West Arm to just N. of Tidal Inlet [accept Greg Howe's line, since it marks the Mrrowest po1nt along the west arm) 3 ~ A small mid-Bay area, to provide a sample of habitats there [Bohnsack] (either Whidbey Passage-Fingers Bay, or Sandy Cove-Beartrack Cove) [Bart/Greg] or maybe a Side inlet like Geikie [more m tune w1th Jev's side-bay idea] MID-BAY SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA Ob1ectives: 1 -create a buffer between no~take areas and outer waters -prov1de extra assurances against over-harvest, by phasing over to stock assessment as the basts for catch llmits. -protect stocks that move across no-take area boundaries from harvest levels that substantially affect natural cotiditions within the no-take areas 2 ~ terminate fishing during the pnnciple vtsitor season (June-August) P.0.3 JAN-29-98 THU 10:14 BRAKEL/STREVELER 907 697 2287 3 -allow types and amounts of ongoing fishing that do not conflict with# 1 & 2, and have no negat1ve Impacts on habitat (these will initially include winter king salmon [consensus], Tanner crab [near-consensus], halibut [Kenny, Jev], gray cod [Doug, Dale], fall Dungeness [Auti] and king crab [Jev]. 4 -provide for readjustment of fisheries and closed area boundaries after15 years [modified from Chip]. Recommended activities: 1 -carry out study to determine optimal configuration of no-take areas and effects of ongo1ng fisheries on ecosystems within them 2 -after 1 5 years -adjust no~take area boundaries to optimum configuration based on study conclusions (but aggregate acreage not to expand or shrink more than 10% of original size) -completEl phasing of fisheries management (possibly excepting wmter king salrr'lon) onto stock assessment Areas to be included: 1 -all waters of Glacier Bay nortll of Strawberry Island that lie outside no-take areas. SUMMARY This draft incorporates as many suggestions from stakeholders and professional advisors as possible. Specifically, we've: ~defined objectives for the vanous management categories, in part per BRD/NPS/Interior. Key elements are: -the main purpose for no-take areas should be ecosystem preservation, per Molly -continuation of a full complement of fisheries in the rest of the mid-Bay, per Kenny. Jev, Doug and Dale; but not an automatic perpetuation of the fishery, per Chip -further insurance against overharvest by phaseover to stock assessment, per BRD, Bart/Greg -disallow any new fishenes or gear types, per general consensus -used a 1 5 year reevaluation for management in the Bay, modified from Chrp, NPS • thts reevaluation as envisioned here can result in limited expansion or contractton of no-take areas; it can result in reduction, expans1on or termination of mid-Bay fisheries if studies demonstrate these actions are warranted, per Bart/Greg -added small mid-Bay no-take area to protect full range of the Bay's ecosystems, per Bohnsack -presented three options, two of which follows Jev's suggestion of closed areas off the ma111 cruiseship lanes -stayed with the Strawberry Island line. per wl1at may be an emerging consensus -used Greg Howe's proposed upper Bay line to the extent practicable -re: the Beardslees -kept them a single management unit, per Tommy/Otti -retained wilderness status, per Jack, Bill and Molly -bought out permits prohibited from fishing (anywhere ill the park), per Otti 3 P.04 TARR INLET JOHNS HOPKINS INLET 0 I HUGH MILLER COMPLEX Glt:terk /6A..y Me: ,_,-. .. t_ p~"1 t4:d</ GEIKIE A r e..a.. INLET 25.7 -· Kilometers 907 697 2287 P.e:::. ISLANDS . •, ······~··--····---~---· CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL FISHING IN GLACIRR BAY First, I want to state my bona fides: As a ~enerali8t who ie at least at arm·s distance from total commitment to any single POint of view, I seek a middle a~ound that values both protected parklands ~na the well being o! my nei~hbors. In that spirit. I wish to offer a conceptual approach to theae proceedinliJs that ie as objective as I can make it. In all ~hat follows, pragmatism-- what ie really attainable--is my suide. What ie the reality of these proceedinas where we are trying to resolve tangled hietor~oal. leaal. and value-8ystem perspectives (and uses) that overlay a single geography--the marine watero of Glacier Bay National Park? To start with. it must be recognized that any resolution must square with a sray zone of law relating to jurisdiction over these waters. Both the State end the Federal Government have agreed that pushina the jurisdictional question to decision in the U.S. Supreme Court would incur immenee coat and take a long time--many. many years. During such a time the National Park Service would doubtless aese~t fully its Congressional charge, aa interpreted by the Inte~ior Department. to exclude commercial fishin~ from all park watere. This would be the only interpretation and implementation of the law possible if the heavyw~ighte actually got into the ring. While wiehina to avoid that struggle and that certain end to more compatible resolution. the State has nevertheleee made it plain that any acceptable reeolution muet leave uncompromieed its jurisdictional claims in Glacier Bay. Thue: a gray area in the law and pragmatic truce for the purpoee of partial coexistence in park waters. these seas that marks a practical compromise and So, it ie in the context of circling, but not laying on attempted compromise occure. within which aareement must be this delicate truce--two the gloves-~that the Theee are the bounding rea.ched. big guys drama of parwnetere Ah! But there-a another card. Special legislation. If we can reach agreement within the above parameters. special legislation framed on that agreement could achieve a coherent and compatible mix of values and ueee that respects both the national park and local traditional fishing. But any special le~islation that aoee not flow agreement--any law that becomes a xorced agreement--will doubtless unleash a National attac~ that will force the jurisdictional interminable limbo of the courts. from that kind of substitute for Interest counter- issue and the In our attempts to date to reach compromise~ we have had several close calla. when th6 meetings and the whole compromise ~ffort oould have ended. And even now many of us feel exhausted and glimpse the PQSaibility of impasse. Thie is because. in the crucible of arguing our own interests, we forget those prickly parameters~ that delicate truce, and the practical fact that the moat likely alternative to inclusive agreement on major points of compromise is a deadlock that will spur imposed and unbalanced legislation, probable veto. and--in any case--eventual resort to the courts. · I conclude that if we are really tryina for agreed compromise we can no longer afford to conduct this discourse f~om the antipodes, from the far ends of the interest spectrum--all or nothin& at all for either park preservation or the fishermen. We must so to the center where eventual compromise awaits. And we better do it now, before con&reasional hearines start later this month. We better so back there with at least a co~oeptual asreement in principle. If we don't, this effort of ours to reach compromise and partial cosxietence will shift to the arena of conflicting absolute~ and political mioro-manaeement. Gathering steam, it will move inexorably to the courts, taking this whole matter and all of us in tow. ****************** With all of these thinge in mind. what might the fram~ork of workable agreement look like? Let·a start with a conceptual pattern, a kind of template. Then we can fill in the major agreements (and note some unresolved i.eeues} resulting fr.om these proceedings. And finallY. we can explore a concept by ~hich an agreement in principle can become a dynamic operational mode--a continuing process that reeolves specific problems and ca~ handle evolving circumstances over the long haul. The template that helps define workable coexistence in the park's marine waters distinguishes two major sectors: First, the OUter Waters from the Cape Fairweather area aouth to Cape Spencer, then easterly via Crose Sound and lev Strait, and finally north to the head of Excursion Inlet. S&cond, the Bay Proper, from the entrance marked by Point Carolus and Point Guetavue to the upper reaches of the fjord. Despite unsettled details along the indented coast of t~e Outer Waters. we have reached eubetanti.al agreement that a cooperative federal/state management regime--informed and influenced bY various interest, advisory, and official groups (including the Board of Fisheries) could manage commercial fiehing in theee park waters in such manner ae would perpetuate historical and traditional patterns and levels of fishing. Reoognizi'ng park mandatee and values in these waters, we have agreed to or 'reached euebstantia.l conseneus on several protective meaeul'ee as · well-- including no new f1eheriee, a halt to damaging scallop fishing, and still-to-be-reflned reetrict1one or closures on eeveral 3 species vulnerable to overfiehins. Theee lo•er-level agreementa and consensual expressions relating to Oute~ Waters, are very ~ncouraaing. For they indicate that the big issue there-~onaoin& though mode~ated commercial fishing in park waters--has been accepted across the board. This aignalo that other lower~level issues are also susceptible to compromise. It means as well that there ie eome faith that a cooperative management regime--with appropriate checks and balances to.aeeure interest-group voice in decisions--could work. Otherwise, why bother working out any details? Recognizing that many iesuee remain to be refined. I want now to leave the Outer Waters and go to the Bay Proper. where big- picture conseneue still eludes us. Before doing eo. however, I want to point out the distinctions between Outer Waters and Bay Proper that have quite differently Bhaped our discourse on these two water bodies. The Outer Watere comprise one of the great fish-migration routes of the world. And once eaetarly of Cape Spencer, these waters get narrow. with tigh~ mid-channel dimeneione and boundaries. In practical terme. closure of hietorical and traditional fisheries in these transient-fish park waters would wreak havoc with theee fisheries and be impossible of enforcement short of a p1cket-boat navy. Thus. both pragmatics and biology point to the need for an ongoing-fisheries solution, a= Bketched above. This does not mean, short of statutory chanQee, that the Outer Waters cease to be protected park waters, nor that the Secretary of the Interior ceases to be the legally designated public trustee of these waters. It does mean that worries about the perpetuity of appropriate, ongoing fisheries in these waters under a workable cooperative-management regime are most likely exaggerated--short of a complete collapse of that regime. The situation in the Bay Proper is quite different. The bay is the very heart and gut of the park. It is the equivalent of the great rift and road that acceee Denali. It is the scene of virtually all visitor experience 1n the park. It is the core of park resources and values, moet obviously north of the morainal sill marked by the Ruah Point buoy. If the wide foyer of the lower bay represents transition from Outer Watera to the bay·e inner receeee~. then that eill and buoy, where the tides etruggle through the narrows, mark the sate of the sanctum--both svmbolically and hydrologically. Beyond that gate--in the minds o£ visitor~ and in the convictions of preservationists--park values, both esthetic and ecological, stand above all others. Beyond there, park watere unquestionably cease to be part of a world-claee fieh miaration corridor and become instead the way to the Wondrous Soene, the fulfillment of lons-nurtured expectations. and the school of instruction for the whole complex of ecological science and b~lief_ That's what national parks are about. I emphasize thia point because it baa not been sufficiently emphasized in these diacueeions. which have been long on the quantificationH and feaaibilities of fishing. I confess my own leaning~ toward the qualitative view. as a former parkman. But my layin& strea~ on it here goes beyond my personal views. Let me be frank. Here ie where nationally potent belief eyeteme will collide headon if not put in proper order. From that premise I can only conclude that. once past that gate, fishing must be clearly subordinate and hiahly conditional. If not, basic agreement on continued commercial fishing in any park waters--outer or bay--will become extremely difficult if not impossible. And we can see throush the glass darkly the results of failure: attempts to force the issue with special legielation9 a rough road to the courts, and meanwhile the hard line of no commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park-- whether by Secretarial order or by injunction. Following from the above statements and the thresholds of attainability that they imply. I see a conceptual pattern tor the Bay Proper baaed on a three-way partition of its waters: · 1. The lower bay, from entrance to Rush Point buoy, but exclusive of Bartlett Cove, would have a fisheries-management regime modelled in part on the eventual OUter Waters ~1eheriee Hanasement Plan. But because these entrance watere require very active management for park purposes (whale waters, summer adjustments for vi~itor acceae and u~e, vessel manasement. etc.), it would be necessary to develop a subset Fieheriee Mahagement Plan £or the lower bay. The 15-year phaee out o£ commercial fishing in the Bay Proper, as eet forth in the proposed regulations, would apply to the lower bay, but conditionally. Ongoing marine-eeience monitoring and etudies durin& the 15-year period, ae well as compatibility with park purpoeee of continued fishing in this part of the bay. would be evaluated toward the end of that period. If science and compatibility are positive, fishing could be extended. with any necessary modifications. Otherwise the phase-out would go into effect. 2. The middle bay extends f~om Rueh Point buoy to Tlingit Point where the bay divides. Ita fieheriee-manasement regime during the 15-year phase-out period would reflect the dominant park purposes and values in thie rich and diverse sector. For example, summer fishins would be disallowed. This part of the bay would contain both fished and unfished areaa in which marine reserve and zoning concepts set forth by several of our contributors and speakers could be initiated Vnfiehed- zone deeisnatione would include Ge1kie Inlety the Whidbey Passage zone including Fingers Bay, and an eastside zone inclusive o£ Sandy Cove and extending south to include Bear Track Cove. Theae zones contain diversities of depth, bottom types, marine organisms. hydrological variables. etc .• extremely useful for scientific studies. Proximate fished and unfiahed areas would allow comparability etudiee, which would contribute to marine 5 science and fisheries management generally. The g&neral lack of marine reeervee, especially in northern waters, distresses marine biologists and fisheries experts worldwide. Glacier Bay National Park, ae an International Biological Preserve, could help rectify this deficiency. This ie a proper role for the park--whether considering park values. fisheries-related benefits. or the preservation of h'io1ogic.al diversity. Moreover, the continuine value of long-term comparability studies could modify the scope of the phase out. Several oontributore have recommended continuation of special winter fieheries, an example beins salmon trolling in this part of the bay. It has been stated that this fishery harvests mainly farm fish rather than native stocks. And it ia a fishery that offers modest winter income for local fishermen. Considerations of th1e eort could be studied during the phase-out period and could lead to exceptions from phase out. (Special concerns about the crab fishery in the Beard~e Island wilderness watere require extended treatment. So thie subject ie postponed for the moment). 3. The upper bay. the two arma above Tlineit Point, would be designated an unfiehed sanctuary in this conceptual plan. On the larger field of compromise, it would have the same weight for preservationists as would the continuance of Outer Watere commercial fishing for fishermen. This statue would be~in with the authorization by law or regulation of any general agreement_ ****************** Crabbing in the wilderness waters of the Beardslee Islands is a special case. I said earlier that pragmatism--striving for the attainable--would be my guide. Well, this is the acid test. And on this one. honesty is all. for this ieeue cannot be skirted, softened, or deferred. It is a red-button e~mbol that has the power to derail any general agreement. I hope in my presentation of this issue, my neighbors will understand my ~eluctance and foreboding to d1ecues their livelihood 1n the terms that I must. But if I don't say it as I"m convinced it is, I firmly believe that we will not come cloc:~e to an attainable aeneral aareement. The controversy over commercial fishing in the park'e wilderness waters began with their 1980 wilderness designation in AN!LCA. We all know the outlines of that history and how deep-eeated and will honed all arguments are. From the point of vi~w of the Interior Department and the NPS, the argument ended with the March 1997 three-judge panel decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the earlier Judge Holland decision: That the department and the park service are mandated by statutory law to prohibit commercial fishing in Glacier Bay'e wilderness waters. I I I hold that an end-run by special leeielation would be a' futile gesture. For it would unite the national coneervation/pteaerva- tion co~nunity to quash a wilderness-tampering precedent ~hat, in their v~ew, could threaten the Wilderness System acr~es the country. That rush to the barricades would, I am cohvinced, trample our larger effort to achieve reasonable coexis~ence in Glacier Bay. , 1 II However unpalatable 1 an attainable compromise on the B~ardalee crabbing issue might be somewhere in the neighborhood 9f this formula: A 5-year phase-out from the Beardslee wi~dernese waters of crabbers with a substantial history there, with: a buy- out option during the first 2 years that would c~ver the remainder of the 5-year phase-out period, plus ~~eative assistance to help dependent fishermen make poet-ph~ae out adjustments. This is my own intuitive sense of the mattet-I can offer no real solace here, ao I won't try. ; I i: ******************* i I In conclusion, I believe it is critical for this group to!~ashion a general agreement that would guide the legislative pr~cess so that it avoids a crash-and~burn fate, endless litigati~~e. and just as endless animosities in our interwoven local commvnities. The suggestions above are a conceptual attempt to meet the thresholds of palatability for etate and federal a~ncies, fishermen. conservationists. and juat plain folka we live;with. II If we can get to at least a conceptual, agreement-in-p~inciple stage. then we could try to envision the organiz~tional, consultative, and dialogue modes that would develop and i~lement a fisheries management plan--one that would balance our'various interests and keep us moving together as circumstances an~ needs evolve. 1 ~ ... ca a.. -~ c 0 ·-...... "' z >. ctl m .... G) ·-CJ ca -(!) 0 Hoonah Indian Association P.O. Box 602 Hoonah, AK 99829-0602 Phone (907) 945-3545 Fax (907) 945-3703 RESOLUTION# 98-02 TITLE: SUBSISTENCE AND COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN GLACIER BAY WHEREAS, the Hoonah Indian Association is a federally recognized tribe in accordance with and by the authority ofthe Acts of Congress ofJune 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984) and May 1, 1936 (49 Stat. 1250); and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of this Association is a Board or Directors, composed of seven members elected by the tribal membership; and WHEREAS, the Hoonah Indian Association is the recognized tribal government for the traditional homeland, Glacier Bay; and WHEREAS, the Huna Tlingit have always been a people of bartering and trading for a significant part of our economic well being; and WHEREAS, the Hoonah Indian Association is afforded the right of a government to government relationship with the federal government; and WHEREAS, the Hoonah Indian Association has a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Park Service which has been in place since September 1995; and WHEREAS, provisions in ANICLA protect of physical and cultural dependence, inherent customary and traditional use within Glacier Bay; and WHEREAS, the Hoonah Indian Association seeks to solidify our tribal government to federal government (National Park Service) relationship to bring resolution to the inherent customary and traditional and commercial fisheries issues in Glacier Bay; and WHEREAS, we know our inherent customary and traditional and commercial fisheries are not separate. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Director sfti1e Ht.•onab Indian Association that recognition as a tribal government, afforded all of thr.: ~1gh~F-of a sovereign tribe be given in all reguiations now and in the futurt: regarding Glacier Hay and the contiguous waters of the Huna Tlingit inherent cus~on~ary and traditional usage areas to the Hoonah Indian Association; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be sent to the Alaska Delegation and all interested parties. CERTIFICATION As President of the Hoonah Indian Association, I hereby certify that the above resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Association of this 2nd, day of February, 1998,. at which a quorum was present, with a vote of 5 for, b. against, and · I - -0 abstentions. ATTEST: ~££~ ?-ol-..:?-98 //Frank Wright, Jr., Tri ~ {._,./ February 2, 1998 National Park SeLvice Glacier Bay Hearings The Martins own 160 acres of trust land in Dundas Bay under the Allotment Act. This is a direct result of being descendants of Glacier Bay. Our family also lived in the Beardslee Island area, namely Ka-de-xooni xaat, prior to the creation of the Park. We are the descendants of Grandfather Tom Martin and Jimmv Martin. Our fCJmil·: ::'-l:: g<.~thered food from the Glacier Bay and Dundas Bay area including Inian Islands for generations. This includes commercial fish. We do not want the regulations to restrict our family from using Glacier Bay, Dundas Bay, including the Inian Island area, from our way of life in food gathering and commercial fish. This includes the new regulations that are applicable to the new boundaries set forth ~~r ~h~ Dundas Bay area to Lituya Bay water boundaries. Our father, grandfather, mother, grandmother and aunt and uncl ctli _L,_.,,._;:~ their lives in Glacier Bay, fully believing that this was their land and utilizing it to its fullest extent. Documentation vedfies that U-..:-.·y· subsisted and commercial fished there for many years. Endorsed b~.--scendants of Glacier Bay: /" /~Au~_, z-~ J ,/" l.--'' . ...... ~~r;~ t(ak~/~'- carolyn Martin John Martin, Jr. Gwen Martin Mariah Martin Mary Martin Rachel Martin White Cathy Martin James Martin Sheila Martin Cymbre Martin Breylan Martin Showalter Martin Garvin Martin Taryn Martin James Wilson James Al Martin Margaret Martin Frank Martin Susie Martin Carolee Martin James Martin Buchkoski William Martin buchkoski Moses Smith Paul Smith, Jr. Corrine Spillman Cassandra Martin Sollie Brittni Martin sallie ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FAX COVER SHEET February 12, 1998 To: Glacier Bay Work Group From: Rob Bosworth This morning I finally received confirmation from Andrew Lundquist, Senator Murkowski's Chief of Staff, that the hearing scheduled for February 26th has been indefinitely postponed. The reason seems to be that the staff would like to let Bill Woolf handle the issue. Bill is expected back on the job in another week or two. I am mailing out Dave Hanson's summary of the agreements reached at the last meeting, and issues yet to be decided. Please look it over when you get it, and either call me or send me any comments you may have. My phone is 465-4100; the fax number is 465-2332; my e-mail address is robertb@fishgame.state.ak.us. As we discussed at our last meeting, we will convene one more meeting of the Work group, for the purpose of final discussion on some remaining issues (Dave's summary identifies the points he believes we should discuss, for the purpose of solidifying a consensus position). I do not see any need to combine this with an NPS "workshop," although I'd be h~py to hear from any of you on this point. Based on several conversations I've had, March 12 , 13th, or17th appear to be possibilities for a meeting date. I would appreciate hearing from anyone of you who have a conflict on any one of those days, that would prevent your attendance. Thank you. WORK GROUP ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN GLACIER BAY FACILITATOR'S STATUS REPORT February 11, 1998 Draft Introduction: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has sponsored a series of Work Group meetings on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay. The purpose of these meetings was to have interest group representatives work toward agreement regarding future commercial fishing activities within the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park. The Work Group includes representatives from ten interest groups or entities having diverse perspectives on the issue. Four Work Group meetings have taken place (November 7 and December 16, 1997, and January 9 and February 4 and 5, 1998) . This paper provides a status report on work group progress as of the end of the meeting on February 5, 1998. Work Group efforts took place against a backdrop of an April 16, 1997 National Park Service Proposed Rulemaking for commercial fishing activities in Glacier Bay and U.S. Senator Murkowski 's bill, S. 1064, regarding Glacier Bay commercial fisheries introduced on July 24, 1997. Work Group efforts were, in part, motivated by Senate hearings on S. 1064 scheduled for late February, 1998. The Work Group focused on narrowing differences and achieving as much consensus as possible before the February hearings. In order to address additional issues and work further to narrow differences, an additional Work Group meeting is scheduled for March 11, 1998. In order to constructively move forward, Work Group members agreed to set aside related state, federal and Native jurisdiction claims and arguments during Work Group sessions. This agreement and any consensus recommendations do not compromise or in any way reflect a change in the jurisdictional claims of any entity. One purpose of the Work Group effort is to avoid prolonged litigation over jurisdictional issues, by finding an acceptable "middle ground" with regard to commercial fisheries activities in Glacier Bay. This status report is divided into the following sections: Work Group participants; general approach; geographic areas; points of general agreement; outer waters; non-wilderness closed areas; fishery specific recommendations (king salmon winter fishery, Tanner crab winter fishery, Beards1ee Island and general Dungeness crab fishery, halibut fishery, red king crab fishery, and Bartlett GLBSTAT4 1 Cove Dungeness consideration. crab Work Group Participants: fishery,); and additional areas for Work Group participating organizations include: Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska (AFSA) , Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA), Friends of Glacier Bay (FOGB), Hoonah Indian Association, National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), S.E. Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA) , Sierra Club (SC) , Sealaska Corporation, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) . Since the National Park Service (NPS) of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) is engaged in a rulemaking process for Glacier Bay commercial fisheries, it is not a member of the Working Group. However, NPS and DOI representatives have been present at meetings to provide information and gain understanding of Work Group concerns and areas of agreement. Recommendations determined during Work Group meetings and especially the February 5, 1998 meeting are set forth below. It should be noted that the working group representatives for Sealaska and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance were not present for the February 5 discussion. In addition, the Hoonah Indian Association HIA) representative was not authorized to vote on behalf of the HIA at the time of the meeting. Since ADF&G sponsors the Work Grouo effort and wants to encouraqe consensus building, the Department did not take a formal position on specific issues at this meeting. General Approach: This status report states Work Group areas of general agreement, near agreement, and non agreement. The report will be clear on areas of unanimity where appropriate. Specific interest group support of some points may be subject to stated qualifications. Consensus points do not represent a final position for anv participant since final positions will be contingent upon the acceptability of a complete package. It should also be noted that all interest groups may not be represented on a particular issue if the group's representative was not present when an issue was discussed or did not have the interest group's authorization to comment on the particular issue. Geographic Discussion Areas: GLBSTAT4 2 For the purpose of specificity, the Glacier Bay National Park commercial fishery discussions have referred to three geographic areas: outer waters, wilderness waters, and the inner bay waters. Outer Waters -describes the marine waters within the Glacier Bay National Park boundaries along the outer coast from north of Cape Fairweather south and east to Excursion Inlet, not including Glacier Bay proper (marine waters north of a line between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus) . Wilderness Waters describes the marine waters located in designated Glacier Bay National Park Wilderness areas: Upper Dundas Bay, Beardslee Islands, Rendu Inet, Adams Inlet, Hugh Miller Inlet. Inner Bav Waters -describes the marine waters located in Glacier Bay proper, defined by the area north of a line between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus. Certain proposals further subdivide the inner bay waters into four areas: lower bay, middle bay, upper bay, and Beardslee Island wilderness area. Lower Bay -refers to the marine waters north of a line between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus and south of a yet to be determined line either between Strawberry Island and the west shoreline or between Rush Point and Young Island. Middle Bay -refers to the marine waters north of the lower bay and south of the southern upper bay boundary (located north of a yet to be determined line across the mouths of the east and west arms of Glacier Bay) . Upper Bay refers to the marine waters north of a yet to be determined line across the mouths of the east and west arms. Beardslee Island wilderness area -refers to the marine waters desi9gnated as wilderness, in the vicinity of the Beardslee Islands. These inner bay waters subdivisions are used to describe management areas for certain fishery issues. However, specific fishery management recommendations and closure area boundaries do not necessarily reflect these subdivision boundaries. Points of general agreement: 1. There will be no new or expanding fisheries in the marine waters within the Glacier Bay National park boundaries. 2. Wilderness waters are closed to commercial fishing (but see Beardslee Island area below) . GLBSTAT4 3 Outer Waters: 1. The present fisheries in outer waters except for the scallop fishery remain open in perpetuity, subject to review of the objectives defined in a cooperative management plan on a regular basis. For the Sierra Club, agreement is contingent upon a corresponding fifteen year phase-out of fishing in fjord waters (Dundas Bay, Cape Spencer to Boussole Bay fjord complex, and Lituya Bayl . 2. Management of these fisheries (noted in 1) continues by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and/ or the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) process under terms of a cooperative management plan. It is understood that the fisheries for migratory salmon and halibut are appropriately managed and do not pose specific concerns in this area. In the event the management system for any species does not respond to a grave concern involving park purposes and resources, the Secretary may exercise federal management authority to address problems, subject to specific and other biological criteria. Identified species of concern will require special management attention. (Work Group will be discussing this concept further and some members have suggested revisions.) Non-Wilderness Closed (No -Take) Areas: The Work Group considered possible immediate (1999 season) commercial fishery closures in non-wilderness areas of the upper and middle bays of the Glacier Bay proper. For the upper bay, proposals ranged from closing parts to all of both the east and west arms. For the middle bay, proposals ranged from no additional closures to closing one area to closing three areas (Geikie Inlet, Whidbey Passage, and an area north of the Beardslee Islands) . In an attempt to offer a compromise, a new AFSA proposal would close Muir Inlet north of the 58 degree, 50' line, three inlets of the west arm (John Hopkins Inlet, Tarr Inlet, and Reid Inlet) , and Geikie Bay. A discussion of this and other proposals had the following results: 1. The Work Group reached consensus on closing Geikie Inlet. 2. Two options for closures in the east and west arms were offered (see attached map) . (Note that not all Work Group members took a position and some may have changed their positions since the meeting) : a. close north of 58 degrees, 50' line in east arm and close three bays in west arm (AFSA, SEAAC, and CACFA expressed support) i and GLBSTAT4 4 b. close waters north of a line approximately crossing the mouths of the east and west arms (FOGB, NPCA, and SC expressed support). Fishery Specific Recommendations: (Note that not all Work Group members took a position on these recommendations and some may have changed their positions since the meeting) Winter King Salmon -The winter king salmon fishery should remain open in perpetuity in Glacier Bay proper, excluding closed waters, with no new or expanding fisheries and subject to cooperative fisheries management plan and practices. (The Sierra Club objected to the continuation of the winter king fishery.) Winter Tanner Crab -The Work Group was considered two positions regarding the winter Tanner crab fishery in the non-closed portions of the middle bay and upper bay waters of Glacier Bay proper: a. The Tanner crab fishery will remain open during a 15 year study period followed by a re-evaluation of the fishery. The fishery will only be terminated if the study indicates that such a closure is warranted. (SEAAC, AFSA, and CACFA supported) b. The Tanner crab fishery will be phased out after 15 years with a shorter period buy-out option. (FOGB, NPCA, and SC supported) Dungeness Crab -In the wilderness waters of the Beardslee Islands and Dundas Bay and in the non-wilderness and non-closed portions of Glacier Bay proper, the Work Group agreed to the following recommendations: a. Phase-out the existing Dungeness crab fishermen by the end of a yet to be determined phase-out period. Phase-out period proposals range from 5 to 50 years. b. A shorter period buy-out option should be offered. The buy-out option would need to be initiated during a one year period and completed as expeditiously as possible. c. Eligibility for crab fishing during the phase-out period and for participation in the buy out program is limited to crab fishermen meeting historic use requirements, yet to be determined. Halibut -Two halibut fishery issues were considered regarding the GLBSTAT4 5 non-closed areas of Glacier Bay proper: the possible need for a summer fishery closure and whether the halibut fishery should be terminated after 15 years. a. Discussion of the summer closure focused on whether existing halibut boat levels, or a increase in overall vessel use, would cause congestion and visitor use conflicts during the summer season, and whether increased fishing could cause a local depletion of the halibut resource. A summer closure approach and an alternative boat threshold approach were considered and voted on for addressing t.his issue. Most Work Group members felt the boat threshold approach could allow continued summer halibut fishing. 1. Halibut fishing in Glacier Bay proper should be closed during the summer -May 15 until September 15. (SC supported) 2. A daily boat threshold of (X) for the number of halibut boats allowed into the Bay on any given day should be established. The appropriate daily boat threshold level has not yet been determined. (AFSA, CACFA, FOGB, NPCA, and SEACC supported) b. Though Work Group members agreed that halibut fishing could be allowed to continue in the Bay for fifteen years, the Group was divided on whether the fishery should phase out at fifteen years or be allowed to continue. 1. The halibut fishery would remain open during a fifteen year study period followed by a re-evaluation of the fishery. The fishery would only be terminated if the study says such action is warranted. (AFSA, CACFA, and SEAAC supported) 2. The Halibut fishery would be phased out after fifteen years or some form of grandfathering option implemented now for historic use fishermen. (FOGB, NPCA, and SC supported) King Crab -As a part of this package, considering the current closed status of the red king crab fishery, and in the spirit of compromise, it is acceptable for the king crab fishery to be closed in the inner bay. Dungeness Crab Fishery in Bartlett Cove -After much deliberation and considering use conflicts, the Work Group has agreed to propose a closure of the summer Dungeness crab fishery in Bartlett Cove (defined as a line across from Lester Point to Halibut Point). GLBSTAT4 6 Additional Areas For Consideration: Some of the issues that still need to be addressed or revisited and may addressed at a Work Group meeting in March are listed below. Lower Bay boundary -part of outer coast or as separate unit with special requirements?, location of a Lower Bay northern boundary line; Strawberry Island line or Rush Point line. Middle Bay management -what, if any, specific fishery management recommendations would apply? Dungeness Crab Fishery - look again at period for historic use. bring up length of phase-out period, completing a buy-out, criteria for UpPer Bay Closure (No -Take) Area Lines -attempt to move towards better agreement on closed (no -take) area boundary lines. Tanner Crab and Halibut -attempt to resolve differences on phase out vs. evaluation; summer halibut fishery. Cooperative Management/Advisory Boards detail. GLBSTAT4 7 address in greater Glacier Bay Commercial Fishing Work Group Closed Area Boundary Proposals February 5,1998 ·\ / .' .~ _/ \ \ //. -~'~ / '. >t\'\., ~ (--} ) f Q\ \\. ·~··· ) I \ ,· r .\ ) \ / L-.-· //~~ ~-.......--, ) < c_.,l .. ~ \ ' \ ( -.f~ ! L .A:' '-''_l.,.."-.. : '-....... .. \\ .. , "x···· •~., I' ~~-lrt ..-J '• -' ·or,-· . ':--._ ~2 ·--' ·"'-\ -Al ied ilahanMI'I SEACC Pro,poql _ , -, J • . ""-.~ / Q ,/ (Weat Ann: John Hopkins , Tail", Reid) ,' ~ ' -"~ / { ~ ~ (!;-~~ ~68501ne -Adlrnt) .. " -~:~n -5 ~ . .....__ .......... Fliel:ldl or G*ler Bay Propoa.l (aeroM the mot!~'~ ot Eaet & W.~ Arm•) t_,t- (> .... '\_ • Both groupe. aai'Md to Geifde lrHt c~oJu~. " · j d ~~ ( >\_ 'p·~ ., ·• ..... ~~ w.tera -lfieady Gloled to commercial UM .......... -......... " --~-~-. \, --........_ ~ f -") \ \ I 1 r ~ .. l, ~I• '1 \ I ) ' .. ~. ' t -~ . / ____ ,,·-·e"' "-" __\ -~·~· I\ ~._ _) , "' '.> \ ~ 0,~4~r \ \ \ 1,\,.l ~) \ ~ ' I ~ , .. ,;.;. ~1 {. 1 ,, ' \ 3<t I .(;--'· ·:.t t · I ~w. l '"t;, \ -' \ \ 1 ' \ \ \ """\ '\ I . ' ....... l ;· ~. t ·~ \-l Jj {t rl-... J'1 rl -\ .. Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Work Group Summary of the Consensus Reached at the Meeting on February 5, 1998 Background The National Park Service (NPS) has proposed to close commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay National Park as soon as the summer of 1998. Key interests affected by the proposed rule, including commercial fishing, local Alaska Native, and environmental groups, as well as state and federal officials have met in a series of meetings from October 1997 through the present. The purpose is to discuss alternatives to the proposed ban, and identify possible points of consensus for development of a joint stakeholder position on Glacier Bay. Although the NPS attended stakeholder meetings, the agency is not a member of the work group due to its concurrent public review process for the proposed rule for Glacier Bay. Outer Waters, Icy Strait The work group reached general consensus that there will be no new or expanding fisheries in the marine waters within Glacier Bay National Park boundaries. The group also agreed that most fisheries presently taking place in the outer waters and Icy Strait areas should continue in perpetuity, under a cooperative management plan. The Sierra Club agreed to keeping outer waters open, contingent upon closing some fjords. Group members agreed the commercial scallop fishery along the outer coast should not take place within park boundaries. The group has not yet addressed a proposal to of create a Dungeness crab study area at a location on the outer coast. Wilderness Waters With respect to wilderness waters, the work group agreed the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial fishing in designated wilderness areas. In the case of the Dungeness crab fishery in the Beardslee Islands and upper Dundas Bay wilderness waters, as in non-wilderness waters of Glacier Bay, fishing would be phased out over a period yet to be determined. The Work group also supported a permit buy-back option for qualifying crab fishermen. Glacier Bay For the waters of Glacier Bay, Work Group members continue to discuss the fisheries that may be subject to a summer closure. l11ere was support for using daily vessel limits as a way to reduce perceived conflicts with visitors, thus allowing the summer halibut fishery to continue. The group agreed the winter king salmon troll fishery should continue in perpetuity in Glacier Bay, except in specified closed areas (described below). The group agreed winter halibut and tanner crab fisheries should continue for at least 15 years. Some group members supported a 15-year study period, with termination of the fisheries only if a study says it is necessary. Other group members supported phasing out these fisheries within 15 years. The latter group also supported allowing only existing halibut fishermen to fish during a phase-out period. As part of the package, the Work Group agreed to closing the red king crab fishery in Glacier Bay. This fishery has been closed for most of the past ten years, for stock conservation reasons. Closed Areas The Work Group agreed that parts of the Bay could be closed to all fishing, in order to meet certain park management objectives. Two versions of the so-called "no take" zones emerged from the meeting (see attached map). All agreed that Geikie Inlet could be closed to commercial fishing, and Bartlett Cove could be closed to commercial dungeness crab fishing. Several groups, including commercial fishermen and SEACC, proposed that Johns Hopkins Inlet, Tarr Inlet and Reid Inlet in the west arm could be closed, in addition to Muir Inlet above a line south of Adams Inlet. A proposal supported by others in the Work Group calls for closing all of the east and west arms, with lines drawn directly across the mouths ofboth. • • • 1~-~~::~mB::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::~:I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Iii::::li:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I::ili~:::::::r~;:::::: From: Bosworth , Robert Sent: Monday, November03, 19971:28 PM To: Regan, Diane Subject: RE: Glacier bay leaving a message for Ken Grant would be ok l :f.tmm:::m::m~:iliil.!i~:::gtJ.i:::m:::::;:I':::::=::::::::::I:'::::::I::lli::t:m::::::::::;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::m::l:::::m:m:::m:::::::I:::m:;:::::::::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::@:::::lliil':::::::l:;;;f;':l:::::;::~ To: Bosworth, Robert Subject: RE: Glacier bay Date: Monday, November 03, 1997 12:07PM Called these guys below -see my comments. Left Message for Kookesh's office, Mackie's office is probably sending Dave Gray. • diane -Original Message--- I!Efi.mfilil!i!liilllll1[11lili!I:P.,mgrifflll§fi!ftiiiliiiil::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::;:;;t1iii!t::;::::::::::::::Ili!Ii!IIII!IIIIIIIIli!illliiiiilfti:::;::;;::::;;:;;:;:::;:::::=:::I::::::::::::::::::;:::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 10:29 AM To: Regan, Diane Subject: Glacier bay I wonder if you could help me a bit on Glacier bay Would it be possible for you to make some calls to key people asking if {1) they received notice about the Glacier bay meetings on Thurs and Fri {2) I f they plan on attending. These are people who are on the Glacier Bay Working Group, which has met several times in the past. I need to be clear ahead of time who will be showing up and I'm unsure about these. Thanks. Ken Grant {Hoonah rep) -945-3220) cell phn 723-8248 { No luck at home or cellphone-in juneau all week, will try again this afternoon) Johanne Dhybdahl {Juneau-Sealaska rep) 780-4409 {h); 586-1512 {w) Fax 586-1823-Is out of town til Wed., his assistant thought he didn 't know about meeting, will give him the news release I faxed. Paul Johnson {789-1944) {calls forwarded to Juneau Courier Svc-they've never heard of him) Bill Brown {Gustavus)--697-2444 Bill knows about mtg, and is coming. l:cal.mlilci::e&:::::;::::::;::::~::::::::=~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::~:l:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::m:::::::::::::::!:::I:::::::::::::!::::::::;::::::::::::::!:::::l::::&;:::;::::::::::::;:;::::::::~:::::::;;::;:::::::m::::::: From: Bosworth, Robert Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 1 :28 PM To: Regan, Diane Subject: RE: Glacier bay leaving a message for Ken Grant wo~ld be ok l\lfil#\i\i\m~r;:::Iilii@.lj\\\liitii'tt:::@t::::::::::::~:~:::Ii!\1\1\:~:::=:::tt:::::::::::::;;;;:::t:~:~:::::::;:::::::::r::~:::;:::::::;;;::t;:;:;:::;:::::::::m;;;;:;::::;:;;:Il!Itt:::::;:@:II!!Ii!!!!I!!!Il!I\I!IIWii\\!\!\!!\i!!Ii!li!i!!i To: Bosworth, Robert Subject: RE: Glacier bay Date: Monday, November 03, 199712:07PM Called these guys below -see my comments. Left Message for Kookesh's office, Mackie's office is probably sending Dave Gray. • diane -Original Message-- lifift.m;;;r;::::;:m:mliiBO!Ulf.!llft\!i!~~:~:;:::::t:\i\i\i\\1\\~\~\\\!\1I\I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i~1~:~::::t:::::;:::::gg@HM\l\!WmW;11\i\i\\ii\\\\\\l%ff\:Jii11\i!II!tii111ii1i1\1\1\i\!\!!Iff\i!1i\1ff?:\I!it\\\!\t\M1\fi!\i\ Sent: Monday, November 03, 199710:29 AM To: Regan, Diane Subject: Glacier bay I wonder if you could help me a bit on Glacier bay Would it be possible for you to make some calls to key people asking if (1) they received notice about the Glacier bay meetings on Thurs and Fri (2) I f they plan on attending. These are people who are on the Glacier Bay Working Group, which has met several times in the past. I need to be clear ahead of time who will be showing up and I'm unsure about these. Thanks. Ken Grant (Hoonah rep) -945-3220) cell phn 723-8248 ( No luck at home or cell phone--in juneau all week, will try again this afternoon) Johanne Dhybdahl (Juneau-Sealaska rep) 780-4409 (h); 586-1512 (w) Fax 586-1823 ·Is out of town til Wed., his assistant thought he didn't know about meeting, will give him the news release I faxed. Paul Johnson (789-1944) (calls forwarded to Juneau Courier Svc-they've never heard of him) Bill Brown (Gustavus)-697-2444 Bill knows about mtg, and is coming. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Wednesday, December 3, 1997 TONYKNOWLE~GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25526 JUNEAU, AK 99802-5526 PHONE: (907) 465-4100 FAX: (907) 465-2332 Dear Glacier Bay Commercial Fisheries Work Group Members and Interested Parties: Attached is a summary from the November 7, 1997 work group meeting held in Juneau. However, please note this summary represents the results of the meeting and is not a verbatim transcript If anyone feels their statements were not adequately represented in this summary, we will take time at our next working group meeting, December 16, to make the necessary corrections. Sincerely, Diane Regan Information Officer cc: Rob Bosworth ¥ .. " .- \"• .. . ~ -•' • .. ,.. ".. .,. .. .. • • • l llllnllliJ,ii::::II!Irillli.i::::;:::::~::::::::::::::;::::;:::::]:~:::::::::;l::::~::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::~llllllllll:::::::::::::::Ili!lllllii~:::::IIIl::::;:~:::::m::;::m:::::::::~:::~::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::;::;::::::::::::::::::::::I:lilllilil!ri From: Bosworth, Robert Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 5:00PM To: Commissioner's Office Subject: RE: Dec 16 GB mtg One other thing is if you could prepare a new version of the "consensus points", updated to reflect changes we agreed on at the meeting. I thought Tina would do that but she didnt, aHhough her notes cover it I think. We'll need this on the 16th. I'll give you my notes if you want. ::&t§nU:IIlMt::::-i~Jim~l::~mM:::::::::::::::::::~:::~:::::~:::::::::::':ttiiiliili!:II!II!Il:II!I::::::r:::::'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::i::t:r:::::~:':'::~:~':':IIIl::::::;:::::::::::::I:::IItf::::::; To: Bosworth,Robert Subject: RE: Dec 16GB mtg Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:52PM Yes, I plan to be at the meeting on the 16111 • I'll bling the laptop and help with recording. I do not understand what you mean by checking with Dave Hanson to see if there is something I need to do with crabbers? What might I need to do? Do you have a contact phone for Dave? • diane Diane Regan Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box25526 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-6167 fax (907) 465-3088 dianer@fishgame .state.ak.us http://www.state.ak.usllocal/akpages/FISH.GAMEJadfghome.htm -Oiiginal Message- ))f.(qffUII!!Ii!'!!I!i!-]MIIfJ::)j)))))i)j)j):):):)j)))j)j)j)))))))))))I::I::I::!Il!!)))j):))))))))))))))))))')')')')')'''j)))))i,)))))))))))))))i))))))))))))I:)')i):j':)i,i,i,:))lfliiiii!!)):))!I!))::::::::::'!i!Ii!):::::::::::::::::::::::~:I!!)))j))):):):)j)j)))j)))):i,:f:I'')j'jf) Sent: Wednesday, December03,1997 4:41PM To: Commissioner's Office Subject: RE: Dec 16GB mtg As you know I'll be in DC from Fliday through next week. I do plan on blinging my laptop, for e- mail. (1) Please check with Debby Boyd next week just to see if there is anything you need to do on the Hanson contract. I will try to do the Appendix C-Scope of work-tomorrow (2) The letter that went out to work group members is all that is out. I think l'llleave it at that. (3) You have the agenda. Please be sure Dave Hanson gets a copy (4) I sent a note to regional staff and have spoken to some of them; you should send a copy of the agenda to Scott Marshall (5) Please check with Dave Hanson and ask if there is anything you need to do on the meeting on the 15th with crabbers. Can you come to the meeting on the 16th? I have been assuming so. Thank You! I Subject: Date: Dec 16GB mtg Tuesday, December 02, 1997 4:01PM I have a list of things to followup on: 1) Hiring of Dave Hansen to facilitate 2) Is there a press release announcing this meeting yet? 3) An agenda? 4) If so, to whom shall I send all this information? Have all of our regional staff who need to attend been invited? Here's what's been taken care of: 1) Conference room reseJVed for afternoons of Dec 15th and Jan. 7. 2) I'll pick up some cookies and coffee the morning of the 15th. Still in limbo: 1) I've left two messages for Tina about the notes from the last meeting, but no response yet. (I have my own handwritten notes, which I could type up if necessary) Diane Regan Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-6167 fax (907) 465-3088 dianer@fishgame.state .ak. us http://www.state.ak.us/locallakpages/FISH.GAME/adfghome.htm l:~mli.::~:tn:::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::;::::::::::~;:::::::::::::;::;::::::::f~:;:!::~:::::::::::::::::::;:;::l::::::::::::::::::I:::M:;:;:::!rM::::::;:::!::::;;:::::::r®::::::::;::::::::;;:::::::::::::;::::::::::m;::::::::i:i::::::t:::::::;;ri:::::i:i::m::::::;:::::t;;:::;::::iii::Im:: From: Bosworth, Robert Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:57PM To: Commissioner's Office Subject: RE: Dec 16 GB mtg , ,./hie's at 276-8827. I guess I was thinking about whether you need to contact any of them or not. --vf ~ ther than that it will just be an informal meeting here in the conf. room. ~;&fiif&f~ tl.tllf:~~~~~~JJ~~ilif.J~i~~*:ifi~f~~r~~rm~~~ft.m~~~FtEritl~ifl@.f:W.~r~t:I~1rnf8ftf&~1~ To: Bosworth, Robert Subject: RE: Dec 16 GB mtg Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:52PM Yes, I plan to be at the meeting on the 16th. I'll bring the laptop and help with recording. I do not understand what you mean by checking with Dave Hanson to see if there is something I need to do with crabbers? What might I need to do? Do you have a contact phone for Dave? • diane Diane Regan Alaska Department of Fish and Game P .0. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-6167 fax (907) 465-3088 dianer@fishgame.state.ak.us http://www.state.ak.usllocaVakpages/FISH.GAMEJadfghome.htm -Original Message- tlfi.vn::::It:::::::::tli-:t-i!i!i1!1i!ir::::::::::::::::rr::::::::::I:ii!i!i!ii!!!!ii!!!!!!!~!1!!!I'''!@!IIf%if!i!iiN!!i!i!i!i!fiiii!1:r:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::m:::::::::::;::::::::::tm:::~I!I!i!!1j[j[@:JIMif@ Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 4:41 PM To: Commissioner's Office Subject: RE: Dec 16GB mtg As you know I'll be in DC from Friday through next week. I do plan on bringing my laptop, for e- mail. (1) Please check with Debby Boyd next week just to see if there is anything you need to do on the Hanson contract. I will try to do the Appendix C-Scope of work-tomorrow (2) The letter that went out to work group members is all that is out. I think l'llleave it at that. (3) You have the agenda . Please be sure Dave Hanson gets a copy (4) l ~f a note to regional staff and have spoken to some of them; you should send a copy of ~ tie agenda to Scott Marshall (5) Please check with Dave Hanson and ask if there is anything you need to do on the meeting on the 15th with crabbers. Can you come to the meeting on the 16th ? I have been assuming so. Thank You! l::~tt~.mf:::::::t;tm:c§ffii~jme~ra.g:m:r::::::~::::~:::::::;:r:r::~:~:~m::::::::::::::~:::'::::::::~:::::t':~::::::;r::::::::rm;:::::::rJ::f:::::::r:~:~:::::;::r::::;;:n::::::;:::~:~:~:::::::::::I:;;t:::~~:~:~:~~:::::::::::::::t;;tr;:: To: Bosworth,Robert Subject: Dec 16 GB mtg I Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 4:01PM I have a list of things to followup on: 1) Hiring of Dave Hansen to facilitate 2) Is there a press release announcing this meeting yet? 3) An agenda? 4) If so, to whom shall I send all this information? Have all of our regional staff who need to attend been invited? Here's what's been taken care of: 1) Conference room reserved for afternoons of Dec 151h and Jan. 7. 2) I'll pick up some cookies and coffee the morning of the 151h. Still in limbo: 1) I've left two messages for Tina about the notes from the last meeting, but no response yet. (I have my own handwritten notes, which I could type up if necessary) Diane Regan Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-6167 fax (907) 465-3088 dianer@fishgame.state.ak.us http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/adfghome.htm 11·K2LH DEPARTMENTOFFISHANDGAME January 26, 1998 Diane Regan AK Dept. of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER To: Glacier Bay Working Group and Interested Parties: I { ' I TONYKNOWLE~GOVERNOR P. 0. BOX 25526 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802-5526 PHONE: (907) 465-4100 FACSIMILE: (907) 465-2332 This letter is to let you know that the next Glacier Bay commercial fisheries meetings will be on Febi'Ualj 3, 4 and 5, 1998. They will be held in Conference Room 142A in the Federal Building in Juneau. The National Park Service will be conducting their portion of the meeting on February 3 from 9:30a.m. to 3:30p.m. The working session will begin at the conclusion of that meeting on February 3 and then also on February 4 and 5 from 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m. at the same location. I hope you will plan on attending and participating. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Robert Bosworth Deputy Commissioner • ·-nr nted on recycled oao< • _ .._ • AGENDA Meeting of the Work Group on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay Sponsored by the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game Tuesday (3:30-4:30), Wednesday and Thursday (8:30a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), February 3, 4 & 5, 1998 Room 142A, Federal Building Juneau, Alaska Working Group Members: Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska Friends of Glacier Bay National Parks and Conservation Association Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Alaska Wildlife Alliance Sierra Club Citizen's Advisory Committee on Federal Areas Hoonah Indian Association Sealaska Corporation State of Alaska National Park Service (ex officio) Purpose: To review and discuss options for resolving Glacier Bay commercial fisheries issues, to continue discussing consensus points, and to come to or approach agreement on a consensus package for the resolving Glacier Bay commercial fishery issues. TUESDAY The Tuesday afternoon session will begin at the conclusion of the NPS session. It will be brief, for the purpose of distributing and clarifying details of new proposals. As time allows, working group members may wish to make preliminary comments on new proposals. WEDNESDAY 1. Introduction {meeting purpose, introduction of work group members and observers, overview of agenda, and ground rules). 2. Where we are and the challenge ahead. a. State's perspective b. Facilitator's observations (it's showtime, all perspectives validi why solution is desirable, status of issues -facilitator observations paper) c. Working group member comments 3. Discussion of Bart/Greg Proposal. 4. Discussion of Bill Brown proposal. 5. Comparison of all proposals (Bart/Greg, Brown, NPS, and other proposals) . 6. Bridging the gaps between proposals THURSDAY 1. Seek agreement/refine positions on specific inner bay issues still unresolved. Likely topics would follow the "facilitator observations" paper and might include: a. upper bay closed area: purpose and boundaries; b. middle bay: fisheries/seasons/closed area possibilities - Giekie Inlet, Whidbey Passage, Fingers Bay, and Sandy Cove - Bear Track Cove; c. lower bay considerations: concerns, northern boundary, winter/summer, and Bartlett Cove; d. winter king salmon fishery; e. winter tanner crab fishery; f. other fisheries fishery waters importance, Park open/closed g. halibut fishery: geographic importance, winter/fall versus summer, local fishermen concerns, park concerns, and management options; h. summer season closure: importance, areas included, length of summer; i. Beardslee Is.: grandfather, phase-out timing, buy-out timing and justification/philosophy 2. Contents of a consensus package discussion) . (assemble from 2 days' 3. Areas needing follow-up work: Sen. Murkowski hearing on 2/26, future meetings, final comments. 2 !.. r-l!'l. 30. 19'38 6: 03Pt·1 GLRCIER BAY' !'lATL P&P 110.260 P.2 \\BARCO\GLBA\ISSUES\CO!vilv'1FISH\Feb98\Vorkshop\Feb98Agenda.draft5.doc January 30) 1998 [4:10PM, ADT] National P~\rk Service Commercial Fisheries Workshop February 3, 1998 9:30a.m.-3:45p.m. Federal Building, Conference Room 142A, Juneau Purpose of the Workshop: The purpose oftoday's workshop is to provide opportunity for public discussion and infonnation exchange concerning commercial fishing issues \vithin Glacier Bay National Park. The workshop will include information on the forthcoming Environmental Assessment, including a look at the history of fishing and other economic activities in the park over time as well as current conditions and valuations, changing visitor use patterns. 9:30: Workshop Overview and Introductions-Dave Hanson, facilitator 9:45: Oven'iew ofNPS Rulemaking Process/Goals-Molly Ross, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Interior; Jim Brady, Superintendent (Molly: brief welcome and update tram Sec's Office; very briefly put workshop in context with rulemak.ing process. Jim: welcome, restate that from the standpoint of the NPS a successful resolution ofthe issue will achieve NPS Outcomes (have 50 copies for handouts/on entry table). 10:00: 1.\'Ianaging Park Resources·NPS ~landates ~md Park Objectives-Dr. Jim Tilmant, Chie±: NPS Fisheries Program, Division of Water Resources, Washirigton Office. Discussion of fundamental differences between managing resources according to federal mandates regarding naturally-functioning ecosystems, versus according to traditional fish and game management concepts for "harvest" of certain species on a maximum sustained yield basis. Validity ofboth types of management regimes, but with focus on critical and significant differences when a unit of the national park system is involved. Presentation up. to 40 minutes, "V~.ith additiona120 minutes for discussion. 11:00: Break 11:15: Environmental Assessment Cpdate-Mary Beth Moss, Chief of Resource Management, Glacier Bay National Park. Provide general update on the role and status of the EA. structure and content; explain what will be analyzed -and what will not; provide general overview and summary of available information for each section. (Handout(s) include one to be provided by Jon Goldstein, DOI-IOS) 11:45-1:00 Lunch break Jm·i. 30. 1998 6: 04P~1 GLACIER BHY r·iHTL P&P ~iO. 260 1:00: History of Economic Development in Glacier Bay-Wayne Howell, Cultural Resource Specialist, Glacier Bay National Park. Cultural perspectives: timeline/ chronology of fishing and other economic activities in the park, including Tlingit, and ending with look at current conditions. P.3 1:45: Characteriza.tion of Current Fisheries -Steve Langdon, Professor of Anthropology, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage. Summarize existing conditions in terms of fisheries in respect to number and distribution (amongst southeast AK communities) of current permit holders and ex-(off-) vessel values of those fisheries. 2:30: Questions and Discussion (Howell and Langdon presentations) 2:45: Break 3:00: Visitor Use of Glacier Bay National Park-Pat Phelan, Management Assistant, Glacier Bay l\TP. Introduce visitor use statistics in contex't of what information is considered in preparing an EA on a particular issue for a national park, and GLBA specifically. (Handout) monthly data display for 1997 (high visitation figures May-Sept), incl. breakdown by du'ferent visitor groups; why '97 an indicative year in terms of future trends. Identify range of effects of commercial fishing on visitor experience and :N"PS role in defining/resolving what constitutes quality visitor experience in a national park. Briefly identifY/explain other related issues which need to be considered: e.g., how and . why virtually all vessel entries and operations in GB proper except commercial fishing vessels are regulated during all or part (summer season) of year. Presentation 20 minutes and ca.lO minutes Q & A's. 3:30: Wrap-Up and Adjournment (ofNPS '\Vorkshop) WORK GROUP ON COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN GLACIER BAY FACILITATOR'SJUNE 15 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS AND STATUS REPORT Introduction: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has sponsored a series of Work Group meetings on Commercial Fisheries in Glacier Bay. The purpose of these meetings was to have interest group representatives work toward agreement regarding future commercial fishing activities within the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park. The Work Group includes representatives from ten interest groups or entities having diverse perspectives on the issue. Six Work Group meetings have taken place since November of 1997. This report summarizes the status of Work Group efforts through the sixth meeting on June 15, 1998. This report builds upon and assumes review of the "Facilitator's Status Report As of the March 13, 1998 Meeting" which outlines the purpose and membership of the Work Group, background on the commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay situation and issues, Work Group approach, Geographic discussion areas, and status of Work Group member votes and positions taken as of March 13, 1998. Since the Work Group participant votes taken during the June 15 meeting were limited to procedural issues and did not address representative positions on proposed solutions for specific fishery management approaches, the status report as of March 13 is still current regarding official Work Group votes on substantive fisheries issues. However, since Work Group members have been creatively considering the unresolved issues, and three new proposals have been given to the Work Group since March 13, the past votes do not necessarily represent current Work Group member positions even though no additional votes have taken place. This report focuses on June 15 Work Group meeting highlights regarding: activities since the March 13 meeting; new proposals provided for Work Group consideration; reaffirmation of the Work Group effort; and future meeting and subcommittee plans. A detailed summary of the meeting is provided in the June 15 Work Group meeting notes. Activities Since March 13 Meeting: Several activities related to commercial fishing in Glacier Bay took place between the March 13 and June 15 Work Group meetings including: meetings between commercial 1 fishermen representatives regarding a possible new consensus position; public hearings on the proposed National Park Service Glacier Bay commercial fishing regulations; an extension of the comment period for the proposed regulations until November 15, 1998; and meetings with the Congressional delegation and staff. Fishermen discussions -Following the March 13 meeting, representatives of the fishing industry held several meetings to attempt to reach a consensus position. To provide more time for this effort, a Work Group meeting originally scheduled for March 23 was ultimately postponed until the June 15 meeting when a new fishermen's position proposal was presented. This proposal is discussed below. Public Hearings -The National park Service (NPS) held seven public hearings on its Proposed regulations during May in six Southeast Alaska communities and Seattle. In response to a request by the State of Alaska, Work Group proposals were also considered during the hearings. An NPS representative noted that the hearings were well attended with good representation from the fishing industry at all six southeast hearings and the environmental/scientificcommunity in Juneau and especially in Seattle. Comment period Extension -In response to requests by the fishing industry, State of Alaska, and Alaska Congressional delegation, NPS extended the comment period to November 15, 1998 to provide more time for consideration of the proposed regulations and EnvironmentaiAssessment. Congressional delegations meetings -separate meetings were held between representatives of the Alaska Congressional delegation and the U. S. Department of Interior and fishermen representatives regarding Glacier Bay commercial fishing issues. New Proposals for Work Group Consideration: Three new proposals have been provided to the Work Group since the March 13 meeting: a National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) proposal; an Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska Glacier Bay Position, and the so-called "Galoot" proposal. These proposals are currently being considered by the Work Group. The following comments on the proposals are not complete summaries and the proposal itself should be consulted for details. NPCA proposal-Chip Dennerlein of the NPCA distributed a proposal on March 31 which outlined a package that NPCA and certain other national conservation groups could agree to. It reflected several areas of previous Work Group agreement (subject to an entire package being acceptable) such as keeping the outer waters open to commercial fishing except for scallop dredging, continuing the winter king salmon troll fishery in Glacier Bay proper, closing Giekie Inlet and at least most of the East Arm, and placing a 2 cap on the number of halibut fishing vessels in Glacier Bay proper during the summer. For some areas in which agreement has not been achieved, it proposed a 15 year or life tenancy phase out for Tanner crab and halibut fisheries with eligibility determined by historic use or exclusive registration, and a five year phase out/two year buy out option for Dungeness fisheries. The NPCA proposal is attached. Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska (AFSA) position -Dale Kelly provided an AFSA position proposal dated May 21, 1998, which reflected the results of the fishermen discussions during the previous three months. It also built on Work Group areas of agreement (subject to an entire package being acceptable) such as the outer waters remaining open to fishing, continuation of the winter king troll fishery, a summer daily vessel cap for halibut boats, and closures of Geikie Inlet and most of the East Arm. For some areas in which agreement has not been achieved, the AFSA position proposed that the Tanner crab and halibut fisheries remain open in Glacier Bay proper with a re- evaluation of the fisheries in 15 years or after appropriate research is completed with the burden of proof to justify added fishery restrictions/closures falling on the federal agency. For Dungeness crab, it provided for a 30 year phase out period with a two year buy out option. The proposal also called for an Advisory committee and the funding of data gathering. As of June 15, details and refinements to this proposal were still being determined. The AFSA position proposal is attached. Galoot proposal -Bart Koehler of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council placed a spontaneous proposal on the table that came to be called the Galoot proposal. This proposal did not represent a particular group, but provided a different approach for participants to consider. The Galoot proposal uses an immediate geographic area closure approach for parts of Glacier Bay proper while leaving other areas open to fishing in perpetuity. Phase outs and re-evaluations would not be necessary. The proposal noted that closure areas could include the East and West Arms and/or approximately the east half of the middle bay south to the Beardslee Island Wilderness. The rest of the Bay would remain open. The closure/open area approach could be used for other areas, or a different combination of or parts of the three areas mentioned. The attached map illustrates the Galoot approach. Reaffirmation of Work Group effort: Work Group members voted unanimously to continue their efforts to resolve issues concerning the future of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park through the summer and into next winter. The Work Group agreed to use November 15, the end of the public comment period, as a target date for providing input to the National Park Service. Members indicated that the Work Group effort represents the best and perhaps only possibility for working out an acceptable long term solution for Glacier Bay commercial fishing issues. 3 Future Meetings and Subcommittee Efforts: The Work Group decided to defer future meetings until after the fishing season so that fishing industry representatives would be available to fully participate. Consequently, the next Work Group meeting will be held in early October. It is expected that three meetings might be held during October and the first half of November. The Work Group agreed that an important goal is to put together an acceptable package of recommendations by the November 15 deadline. In the meantime, the Work Group agreed to begin subcommittee work on specific issues that must be addressed regardless of the outcome on unresolved issues. The Group identified three issue categories which could be addressed by smaller groups before October. The Subcommittees will report the results of their work to the Work Group at the early October meeting. The three subcommittees are: Cooperative Conservation Strategy Subcommittee; the Citizen Advisory Board Subcommittee; and the Dungeness Crab Phase Out Subcommittee. The Cooperative Conservation Strategy Subcommittee will work on an approach for managing on-going commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park including a possible state/federal Memorandum Of Agreement with stated goals, objectives, definitions of terms, and authorities and procedures for working on a conservation strategy. Work could also include defining the agreement point that there be "no new or expanding fisheries". Subcommittee members are Rob Bosworth, Molly Ross, Randy King, Chip Dennerlein, and Dale Kelly. The Citizen Advisory Board Subcommittee will suggest the make-up of the Board and describe its tasks. Stan Leaphart (Chair), Dale Kelly, and Department of Fish and Game and Department of the Interior representatives would be on this subcommittee. The Dungeness Crab Phase Out Subcommittee will address questions regarding the phase out process, eligibility criteria, crab fishing during a phase out period to avoid a windfall for remaining fishermen, and the buy out plan including legal, economic, and policy implications. The Work Group previously determined that the state and federal government should work together on the eligibility requirements with input from the fishing industry. Thus, participants are Tom Traibush, Rod Selvig, Randy King, Jeff Hartman, and hopefully someone from Interior and from Sen. Stevens' office. attachments: NPCA proposal AFSA position 4 Galoot proposal 5 Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska Glacier Bay Position May 21, 1998 Outer Waters All fisheries continue under current management regime. Glacier Bay Proper (north of a line from Pt. Carolus to Pt. Gustavus) All fisheries continue in the bay proper as follows: • Dungeness phase-out/buy-out Both Glacier and Upper Dundas Bays 30 year phase-out or buyback Any buyback must be implemented within 2 yrs Qualifications for compensatory package determined by state and federal agencies, in consultation with the fishing industry. • AFSA/SEACC agreed areas closed to all commercial fishing All side Inlets in West arm I East arm down to Adams I Geike Inlet • AFSA/SEACC agreed Sfjlfln lts:r area closures for halibut and tanner crab only: West Arm: Longitude 136 40 East Arm: Caroline Shoal to Garforth • Summer daily vessel cap for halibut only: 8 (Memorial Day -6120) & 4 (6121- Labor Day) includes Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends • Summer troll fishery continues • Winter troll fishery in all open areas in AFSA/SEACC agreement. Winter troll fishery also allowed in areas closed io lit.IAHiter to halibut and tanner crab fisheries • Support Congressional funding for multi-agency data collection program • Advisory Committee -scientific, industry, public group to develop management plan for the bay proper. Advisory to Board of Fish • Re-evaluate fisheries in bay proper in 15 years, or after appropriate research completed. ___ ~~ments to the fisheries shall be made only as warranted by the studies. -Burdenotproof to justify added fisheries restrictions or closures shall rest on the federal agency. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council and Allied Fishermen of Southeast Alaska Position on Glacier Bay Management May 21, 1998 -~ Additional Areas Closed to AU ~ (West Arm: John Hopkins, Tarr, Reid) (East Arm: Above 58' 50 line • Adams) merc ia! Fishir.g m Additional Areas Closed to Commercial Halibut (West Arm: 136' 40 ) (East Arm: Pt. Caroline to South Tip Garforth) • Wilderness Waters· Total Area: 53,270 Acres Some areas already closed, others will be phased out Vessel Limits Halibut Fishery Only 8 per day • Memorial Day-6120 4 per day· 6/21-Labor Day ~ . . • • Additional Areas Closed to All (West Arm: John Hopkins, Tarr, (East Arm: Above 58' 50 line -Adams) • Additional Areas Closed to Commercial Ha (lltMI i liz; l IR:IIIar 8iy) (West Arm: 136' 40 ) (East Arm: Pl. Caroline to South Tip Garforth) • Wilderness Waters· Total Area: 53,270 Acres Some areas already closed, others will be phased out !ftl .. .. :![ i: ····. ~t :J:: :t. ·;· :~;; ··.· ··: .. ':·~ .. · ... • ~ I .. :.:::, I -~ . ·.·.· . ::· ::! . :~. • ( '•, . ,r:: •: ·~::::·: .... . ·.· .·.· . . ~~~~: .. ;::~ :f: ·' ·' -:• ::; ·. •. •.· . ... .'.f· .. · ~=~ .. . ~·-... :;::· ... ~~:~ .. ·{~~ --.,). ~ ~: .-· ... : '"l ~~ ·.· ' .. '·· . ·~r ''·· ... ~) :~·:. ·~. ~:-!,t~~~~J ~: " .. ~,~¥ li:;~~- -~: """"' ··:·:::::