ISSUES AND INITIATIVES


Description of some issues facing the trawl industry and the Groundfish Forum initiatives addressing them.

Issue 1: STATUS OF GROUNDFISH RESOURCES

Each year in December, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council reviews the current stock assessments for the groundfish resources of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. Biologists on the Council's "Plan Teams" prepare annual assessments of the individual fish stocks and the general health of the ecosystem. The Council establishes annual harvest levels based on these reports.

KEY FINDINGS BASED ON 1997 ASSESSMENTS:

Flatfish: Flatfish is the lifeblood of the head and gut (H&G) fleet and almost all of the stocks are at historically high levels. Stocks of yellowfin sole and rock sole have increased steadily over the last ten years and presently it appears that the stocks are stabilizing. Overall abundance of flatfish has increased to about 8 million metric tons (up from 2 million metric tons when the Magnuson Act was written in 1976). Notably, however, Greenland turbot has not rebuilt as strongly as the other flatfish species.

Rockfish: Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska are managed very conservatively and current data suggests these stocks are increasing. The most dramatic case is Pacific Ocean Perch in the Gulf of Alaska. This species has been managed under a rebuilding plan since joint venture fishing ended. Because of the success of the rebuilding plan, stocks of Pacific Ocean Perch have exceeded the target abundance and therefore, allowable harvest levels have increased significantly.

Pacific Cod: Pacific cod stocks are at all time high levels and a number of strong year classes have entered the fishery. This bodes well for continued high levels of harvest.

Atka mackerel: Atka mackerel is a critically important species for many of the larger H&G vessels and this year the allowable harvest of Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel was reduced by roughly 40%. The Council approved the decrease due to uncertainty regarding the current survey methods and concern over the lack of legitimate survey techniques used to measure population abundance. Presently, the trawl survey is generally considered to be unsuitable for Atka mackerel because of their unique characteristics and distribution of the stock.

Pollock: The most troubling news this year is that the walleye pollock resource could be headed for a downturn in the coming year. The year class structure of the stock at present may not be adequate to support the high yields that have occurred over the last 15-20 years. Concerns also exist over the extent of pollock catch by Russian and joint venture trawlers fishing on the Eastern Bering Sea stock just over the International Line. Allowable fishing levels for pollock could decrease in the range of 25-40% over the next few years unless the 1992 and 1995 year classes are found to be stronger than current estimates indicate.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

Atka mackerel: Members of the Groundfish Forum will be working with National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) and University of Washington stock assessment scientists in 1997 to develop ways to improve the NMFS abundance survey for Atka mackerel. Forum members are currently working with NMFS and the University of Washington to provide industry funding for the development of an alternative survey method design. Members of the Forum may also contribute vessel sea time to NMFS stock assessment scientists to conduct the alternative survey once it is developed.

Sablefish: In an effort to enhance the accuracy of the sablefish survey, the Groundfish Forum will be working this summer to establish better communication between NMFS scientists conducting the sablefish longline survey in the Gulf of Alaska and trawl vessels engaged in fishing. The purpose of the project is to inform industry members of the scheduled survey positions so that longline and trawl vessels can better avoid fishing locations close to the survey stations.

Issue 2: FULL RETENTION/UTILIZATION

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recently approved a requirement for full retention of cod and pollock starting in 1998 and yellowfin sole and rocksole starting in 2002. This new regulation may have large consequences on smaller trawl and longline vessels that have very limited product hold capacity. This is because no market currently exists for much of the small flatfish that are commonly discarded. In addition, prices for headed and gutted pollock almost never cover the costs of producing this product on small processing vessels, not to mention the opportunity cost created when scarce hold capacity must be devoted to lower valued products.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

Members of the Forum do indeed want to reduce discards of marketable fish, but we recognize that the economics of smaller head and gut vessels will be severely challenged by the requirement for full retention of cod and pollock. The Groundfish Forum is currently preparing a request for an experimental fishing permit for H&G vessels to test with net designs that will hopefully eliminate much or nearly all unwanted catch of pollock, cod, and small flatfish, while retaining larger flatfish. If granted by NMFS, the experimental fishing permit would provide time outside of the regular fishing season for vessels to test gear innovations in a systematic way so that the effects on catch composition can be verified.

The head and gut fleet has already worked to reduce discards in the rocksole fishery, where discard rates have historically been high. Discards in the rocksole fishery occur because of the large differential in value between the target fish and the other types and sizes of fish commonly caught. With the implementation of a voluntary program to increase retention in 1995, the rocksole fleet was able to reduce its discard rate by over 30%.

Issue 3: INCIDENTAL CATCHES OF HALIBUT

Usually flatfish and cod fisheries close long before all of the total allowable catch has been taken by the fleet. This occurs because in addition to caps on the target species, managers have imposed limits on the number of tons of halibut that can be taken incidentally by vessels fishing for flatfish and cod. Limits have also been placed on the kilograms of halibut caught incidentally per ton of target catch. Halibut must currently be returned to the sea by groundfish fishermen even if the fish is already dead. The trawl industry has a total cap of halibut within which to conduct its bottom trawl fisheries. Each year the halibut bycatch cap is achieved before many of the flatfish and other groundfish fisheries reach their total allowable catch limits. The halibut cap is thus a huge obstacle to reaching optimal yield from the groundfish resources of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.

One recent development of significance is that the latest assessment found that halibut abundance is significantly greater than previously estimated and in some areas halibut are three to five times more abundant than was believed before. This helps to explain why the fleet has had such a difficult time avoiding incidental takes of halibut and may provide impetus for a review of the trawl halibut cap.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

Groundfish Forum members are greatly affected by incidental catch caps on halibut because of their relatively large dependence on fish species that coexist with halibut. Over the next few years, efforts to refine methods of avoiding halibut catches and improve the survivability of halibut caught incidentally will be critical to our ability to remain economically viable in the fisheries upon which we depend.

Over the last two years, Groundfish Forum vessels have used a halibut avoidance program that has proven very effective. This system relies on an independent contractor who receives daily NMFS observer data from satellite communications systems aboard all vessels. The contractor rapidly calculates bycatch rates from the observer data and sends plotted charts back to vessels in the avoidance program to identify incidental catch "hotspots". This allows vessel operators to avoid areas where halibut rates are high. This system, called Sea State, has proven very effective in reduction of incidental catch rates of halibut and is now an industry standard.

In the near future, Groundfish Forum members will be working with regulators to develop on-deck sorting techniques that lower the mortality of halibut taken incidentally. This will allow better use of halibut available to the groundfish industry for incidental catches. Groundfish Forum members will also be considering an innovative system of individual vessel limits on halibut catches. Such a system would improve incentives for individual accountability and prevent a few companies that commonly fish with little regard for avoiding halibut from shutting down the entire fleet.

Another regulation change of great interest to Groundfish Forum members is allowing retention of halibut that are determined by NMFS observers to be dead. These fish could then be processed for donation to food banks. Such a change would prevent the waste that results from the current requirement to throw overboard all halibut, including those that are dead.

Issue 4: CRAB PROTECTION AREAS AND LIMITS ON CRAB BYCATCH

With the downturn in crab stocks over the last five years, a great deal of restrictions are now imposed on the groundfish trawl fleet, as well as directed crab fishery. Over the last two years, three new areas amounting to thousands of square miles of productive groundfish areas in the Bering Sea have been closed to trawling in an effort to protect crab populations. Some of these areas were prime fishing grounds for the rocksole and yellowfin sole fisheries.

In addition, existing limits on the incidental take of crab by trawling have been made even more restrictive for the trawl fleet. Prior to the recent revision, incidental catch of crab equated to an annual take of a small fraction of one percent of the population. Despite these already low levels of incidental take by trawls, the North Pacific Council recently approved a suite of further reductions of incidental catch limits for red king crab and bairdi tanner crab, and recently created a new incidental catch limit for opilio tanner crab.

Because these limits are such small fractions of the crab populations, they are generally construed by biologists to be allocational in nature, rather than affording biological protection. Essentially, this is due to the fact that even if these small amounts of incidental catch were 10% or 50% higher they would not affect crab populations. Like halibut, current regulations stipulate that crabs taken in trawls cannot be retained and must be returned to the sea, even if they are already dead.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

In 1995 and 1996, the incidental take of Bristol Bay red king crab in trawl fisheries was approximately one-tenth the average number taken during the five years prior to 1995. This was accomplished through the implementation of closed areas, and with the industry's efforts to develop a red king crab avoidance program for areas that remained open to trawling. In fact, the industry's red king crab avoidance program proved to be of critical importance in 1995 when incidental catch rates in the rocksole fishery were high at the start of the season. This occurred despite the closed areas for red king crab protection that had been created. When the high incidental catch rates became apparent, Groundfish Forum members quickly responded by shifting fishing effort to other fishing grounds where red king crab catch rates were low. This timely response to high incidental catch rates at the start of the 1995 season was made possible by the use of Sea State. As noted previously, Sea State is an industry-developed communications system designed to rapidly calculate incidental catch rates and identify halibut or crab "hot spots". Although Sea State was developed for halibut avoidance, it has proven equally effective for crab avoidance.

Members and staff of the Groundfish Forum have been very involved in attempting to keep the recent suite of additional restrictions on the trawl fleet as limited as possible. Members recognized that it was necessary to curtail trawling in most of the areas recently approved for closure because incidental catch rates of crab were too high in those areas. Yet a few of the areas considered for closure did not have excessive incidental catch rates and Groundfish Forum members were able to convince regulators to leave those sub-areas open (some on a conditional basis in years when crab populations were high enough to allow directed crab fishing by the crab fleet).

Over the last year, reductions in incidental crab catch limits were negotiated by the trawl sector and the crab fleet. This approach allowed for a more balanced process whereby different groups could focus on the specific aspects that were most important to their constituents. This also allowed for the new opilio tanner incidental catch limits to apply to a specific area so that only a limited portion of the Bering Sea will be closed to trawling if the opilio limit is reached.

Issue 5: CONCERNS OVER THE EFFECTS OF TRAWLING ON BENTHIC HABITAT

Very little is understood concerning the effect of trawling on bottom habitats, particularly sand and mud bottoms where flatfish abound. In the North Pacific, tens of thousands of square miles of sensitive (coral, cobble, and other fragile substrates) habitat have already been closed to trawling and commercial crabbing in recognition of the potential effects from habitat damage in these areas. Conversely, mud and sand strata, the majority of the area left open to trawling, may show little or no negative impact from trawling.

Despite this dearth of information, some trawl opponents have attempted to condemn trawling. This "trawl bashing" attitude could jeopardize an economically important fishery because no other gear is suitable for flatfish and other species pursued by members of the Groundfish Forum. Further, future restrictions on trawling may create even more imbalances in the relationships between species. For instance, flatfish populations are known to be growing very large in proportion to other groundfish and shellfish populations. Some scientists believe restrictions on trawling for cod and flatfish may have created an over-abundance of crab predators. This could serve to keep crab populations low because each flatfish can consume hundreds of larval and post-larval crab every day and cod are known to consume all crab stages including adults.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

The membership of the Forum believes objective research should be performed to evaluate the impacts of today's trawl gears on the types of mud and sand habitat where flatfish and other bottomfish trawling is currently allowed. Groundfish Forum members have cooperated with NMFS surveys and gear experiments in the past, and association members remain committed to making their vessels and personnel available for legitimate research to increase the understanding of the effects of trawling. We are also willing to modify the gears we use if this is legitimately deemed necessary or beneficial. As new technologies for understanding the effects of trawling become available, we stand committed to cooperating with underwater studies using such devices as low-light cameras and other techniques that hold promise for increasing scientific knowledge.

Groundfish Forum has recently organized the resources to complete a review of existing literature on the effects of trawling. This review will focus on habitats similar to those where Alaskan Groundfish is harvested. In addition, the members of Groundfish Forum have funded a graduate student with the University of Alaska to empirically test the effects of trawls on yellowfin sole fishing areas. The preliminary findings from both these projects were presented by John Gauvin as part of his testimony at a House committee hearing on Essential Fish Habitat in Washington D.C. Select here for the transcript text.

Forum members have also taken steps to document the number of lost crab pots that come up in trawls. There is considerable concern regarding the numbers of lost pots that remain on the sea floor, as well as the possibility that these derelict pots may continue to "ghost fish" for crab. For the last two years, the trawl industry has been taking videos to record the number of lost pots and the number of crabs that are found in those pots. This may help to provide information documenting the potential negative effects of ghost fishing by pots lost by crab fishing vessels.

Issue 6: ALLOCATION TO PREFERRED GROUPS, GEAR TYPES

The trawl industry has already felt the effects of numerous regulatory initiatives that favor other gear groups and impose regulations on trawling even where scientific and economic evidence demonstrates that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. These have taken the form of reductions in crab bycatch caps, requirements for the retention of fish for which there is no market, and the imposition of expansive closed areas far beyond the size needed for protection of fish and shellfish species or their habitat.

The largest potential effects on the businesses comprising the Groundfish Forum, however, could result from decisions that directly set aside allocations of groundfish to gears or processing modes favored by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council or the State of Alaska. These could be shoreside processors, as was the case with the pollock allocation for Inshore/Offshore, or small vessels and fixed gear groups in Alaska that have never fished in the groundfish fisheries of the North Pacific or have been very marginal players over time. Any large reallocations and set asides for existing or new players will further erode the economics of at-sea processing and exacerbate the problem of too many fishing boats for the available sustainable yields from the fishery.

Alaska as a whole has only a small stake in the trawl and large-scale longline industry that processes at sea. Therefore, Alaskan voters on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council will likely continue to favor the gears and vessels where Alaskans appear to have more of an economic interest. For the flatfish fishery; pot, jig, and small-scale longline gears have not proven effective. Hence, the potential for a reallocation to gears favored by Alaska appears unlikely at this time.

For the Pacific cod, however, small pot and jig vessels have demonstrated an ability to take a significant portion of the catch if it is set aside for those vessels. For example, the State of Alaska's Board of Fish approved in November a regulation to set aside up to 25% of the federal total allowable catch of Pacific cod to vessels that use pot and jig gear. The catch from this "state waters" fishery will be deducted off the top of the federal waters total allowable catch because federal fishery managers will not permit over harvest. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has thus far not opposed such a reallocation. This is an example of the potential effects of allocation to preferred groups and this may only be the beginning.

Many industry participants, including Alaskans that trawl or have large scale longline vessels, feel cod produced by these small pot and jig vessels results in a net loss of value from the fish because typically only low-valued product forms result from cod caught by pot and jig gear.

  • Initiatives of the Groundfish Forum

It is recognized by members of the Groundfish Forum that a great deal of work needs to be done to inform the Alaskan political and regulatory bodies of the negative tradeoffs associated with potential large scale reallocations of fish from existing industry users. In addition to aggravating overcapitalization, creating a new set of users or claimants to the resource, and possibly creating a net loss in revenue from the fish resource, reallocation affects service industries in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest that benefit from the services they provide to "head and gut" trawlers, as well as other trawl vessels.

One purpose behind the formation of the Groundfish Forum was to develop a mechanism to explain the economic and employment benefits that are generated in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest by the head and gut trawler fleet. One has only to read the Alaskan newspapers or talk to State legislators to understand how little is known about what the freezer trawler fleet produces, where it fishes and what it fishes for, how many jobs it provides, and how much it spends in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. We feel that making sure the facts are understood can only help our cause.