Saving Seafood

ALASKA: Jellyfish Numbers Rising in Bering Sea; Scientists Studying Potential Impacts

June 29, 2018 –Jellyfish have been a natural part of the Bering Sea ecosystem for decades, but in recent years, their population numbers in the region have dramatically increased. Now, a research team funded by the National Science Foundation is in Nome to find out what the cause and implications might be.

“There are certainly fish that do feed on jellyfish: some of the salmon do, some other fish. But in this part of the world, not this many fish feed on jellyfish.”

That’s Mary Beth Decker, a research scientist from Yale University who is part of a three-person research team sailing to Slime Bank in the southern Bering Sea this week, north of the Alaska Peninsula. As she noted, there are minimal benefits from having jellyfish around. Not only do few types of fish eat them, but these species aren’t exactly edible for humans, either.

When it comes to potential consequences of having more jellyfish, though, Decker says that’s a different story.

“And we know that they have impacts on the ecosystem, because they feed on things that fish eat. For example, they’ll eat small crustaceans, zoo plankton, that are prey for other seabirds and marine mammals. And also fish, both young fish and some older fish, like herring, as well.”

According to Decker, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been recording jellyfish numbers in the Bering Sea for the last 40 years using their trawls. The populations have fluctuated up and down throughout that period for multiple species of jellies, including larger ones like Pacific Sea Nettle, but Decker also points out there are smaller types that are harder to see or even catch in trawl nets.

That’s why Joanna Chierici, a teacher from New Jersey, is onboard this research voyage, to educate and reach out to groups about the types and numbers of jellyfish present in the Bering Sea.

Read the full story at KNOM

ALASKA: Coastal Villages study renews fight over CDQ quota allocations

June 21, 2018 — A new study reaffirms that large and long-standing inequities still exist in a federal program aimed at improving the economic situation in Western Alaska.

Coastal Villages Region Fund commissioned the report conducted by the Seattle-based research firm Community Attributes Inc., which concludes the fisheries allocations in the Community Development Quota Program prevent the groups representing the poorest regions in Western Alaska from fully achieving their mission.

Coastal Villages is the CDQ group for 20 villages on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which is one of the most economically depressed regions not only of Alaska, but the country as well.

The Western Alaska CDQ Economic Needs Report notes that Coastal Villages serves 35 percent of the population meant to benefit from the program, yet has access to just 24 percent of the pollock, about 18 percent of the crab and 17 percent of the Pacific cod quota dedicated to the CDQ Program.

Those fisheries quotas are allocated amongst the six CDQ groups that cover residents within 50 miles of the Bering Sea coast in an area starting north of Nome on the Seward Peninsula south and west through Bristol Bay and out the Aleutian chain.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

NPFMC Separates Adak Cod Issue from Broader Cod Allocation issues, Expects Action by Dec 2018

June 18, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Management of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands is a study in complexity, founded on the earnest principles of protecting historical deliveries to the village of Adak and balancing the needs of the rationalized fishery with the non-rationalized Aleutian Island cod fishery.

Amendment 113 to the BSAI groundfish plan was intended to navigate this warren of concerns, but in the first year of its implementation a perfect storm of sorts resulted in the North Pacific Council asking certain fishing vessels to ‘stand down’ last February to allow other cod deliveries to Adak, while the body set out to correct the regulations.

At their April meeting, the Council created a Purpose and Need statement acknowleding that “changes in fishery participation patterns and total allowable catches in the BSAI, resulted in the fishery progressing in a manner that may have been counter to the intent of providing community protections in the Aleutian Islands.”

The Council went on to state it “intends to modify Amendment 113 such that the prosecution of the BSAI cod fishery aligns with the council’s original objective of addressing the risk that participants in BSAI rationalized fisheries may diminish the historical share of BSAI cod of other industry participants and communities that depend on shoreplant processing in the region.”

Thus the process began for alternatives to consider, analyses of the options, and public comment periods, with resolution now estimated for the 2020 fishing season.

But part of the perfect storm of complexities was another problem — the emergence of the Amendment 80 fleet (BSAI trawlers that mostly target flatfish and other non-pollock species) acting as motherships and taking deliveries that may otherwise have gone, at least in part, to shorebased plants.

Any reference to an imbalance in deliveries to on-shore and off-shore facilities triggers memories of perhaps the most contentious issue the North Pacific Council has ever addressed, the ‘inshore/offshore’ debate that resulted in the American Fisheries Act, which rationalized the BSAI pollock fleet.

The Council decided to treat each problem as a separate one, but asked that the discussion paper include “tradeoffs and benefits of combining this action with the BSAI [catcher vessel] cod action the Council will address in June.”

Action taken at last week’s meeting confirmed that the Adak cod set-aside issue will continue independently of the AM80 mothership issue.

The schedule for resolving Amendment 113 and fixing the Adak cod set-aside is to review the analysis of four alternatives in October with final action tentatively set for December 2018. With public comment periods and regulatory reviews, the final rule’s earliest publication could be late 2019 with implementation in the 2020 cod season.

June’s discussion paper crystalized the complexity of current regulations in the Aleutian Island fishery.  After describing the allocations and limitations for BSAI cod, NPFMC analysts Jon McCracken and Darrell Brannan describe what happened next.

“Participants began to realize that under the current regulations the AI shoreplant would not be able to take deliveries of the entire 5,000 mt AI set-aside after the BSAI trawl CV sector was closed to directed fishing for the A season.

“Prior to that time some participants were under the impression that the AI set-aside essentially guaranteed the shoreplants would be allowed to take delivery of the 5,000 mt AI set-aside if they achieved the 1,000 mt before February 28. However, after February 11 all of the federal Pacific cod CV sectors except jig gear were close for directed fishing in the A season in the BSAI.

“Given that 6,515 mt of Pacific cod was available to trawl CVs to deliver to any processor in the AI, at least two companies made plans to harvest a portion of that allowance and deliver the catch to processors other than the AI shoreplant. One company was using its CV to deliver to one of its C/Ps.

“However, this occurred during the February Council meeting, and when the Council was made aware of the issue it asked this company to not participate in the unrestricted fishery, due to the impacts to the AI shoreplant. This company had already taken a small amount of Pacific cod, but they agreed to stand-down from the fishery at the request of the Council.

“After the 2018 A-season was underway, a second company requested that their CVs be allowed to deliver to the AI shoreplant. In part due to capacity constraints and the timing of the request, the AI shoreplant did not offer a market to those CVs. The company decided later in February to have some of its trawl CVs deliver AI Pacific cod to Dutch Harbor.

“CVs that were delivering to the AI shoreplant are reported to have self-imposed trip limits and a one-day stand-down after a delivery to help reduce wait times at the plant. Trawl CVs set the trip limit at 400,000 lbs. for the larger CVs and 100,000 lbs for smaller CVs. These trip limits were abandoned when NMFS announced the BSAI A season trawl CV closure for March 4, 2018, which resulted in a larger volume of Pacific cod being delivered during a short period of time.

“The shoreplant operator has indicated during testimony to the Council that the shoreplant has a daily capacity of 1.2 million lbs. to 1.5 million lbs. At 1.2 million lbs. per day, the shoreplant could process the AI set-aside in about 9.2 days. During the 2018 A-season, daily processing of GHL and federal Pacific cod combined never exceeded 1 million lbs. and was typically much lower.

“Once trawl CVs harvested an amount that was projected to be equal to the BSAI trawl CV sector A-season allowance22, they were closed to directed fishing on March 11.

“NMFS In-season Management’s ability to close a fishery exactly on the amount a sector’s TAC is limited by variations in daily landings and the fact that closures are announced ahead of time for 12 noon on a specific day.

“Catch in the AI set-aside and unrestricted fishery resulted in the trawl CV sector AI season being closed in the BSAI prior to the entire 5,000 mt AI set-aside being delivered. That meant the only CV sector that remained open25 to directed fishing was the BSAI jig gear sector.

“The BSAI allocation to the jig sector was insufficient to allow the AI shoreplant to take deliveries of the remaining 5,000 mt AI set-aside.

“NMFS announced that the 5,000 mt AI set-aside had not been landed at the AI shoreplant by March 15th. Because the 5,000 mt AI set-aside was not reached by that date the BS non-CDQ trawl CV A-season sector limitation remained in effect until March 21 and the AI set-aside to not apply for the remainder of the year. The amount of the 5,000 mt AI set-aside that was delivered to the AI shoreplant cannot be reported due to confidentiality restrictions.

“The AI shoreplant could report their Pacific cod deliveries or agreed to waive the confidentiality restrictions associated with NMFS or the Council reporting the Pacific cod deliveries they received.

“The BSAI Pacific cod non-CDQ trawl CV B-season opened to directed fishing on April 1. The 2018 B-season allowance was set at 4,425 mt at the start of the fishing year. Directed fishing was closed on April 3 as a result of the B-season allowance being reached. The AI shoreplant took Pacific cod deliveries during the B-season.”

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

‘Weaponized’ McDowell Report on Value of Shore Processing Opening Gun in Fight Over Cod Allocations

June 15, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The newly released McDowell Report on the economic impacts of shore-based processing was requested by the processors to support their position on the cod issue at the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

The results of the analysis demonstrate the inshore seafood sector is the primary source of economic activity in the BSAI region and a critical source of income for the region’s communities and residents. It further illustrates the importance of a diverse portfolio of species and products in sustaining the industry’s important regional and statewide economic impacts,” according to the study.

In 2016, inshore processing paid $41 million in wages to 1,230 of the region’s residents, and over $22 million in fish and property taxes to six communities, including Unalaska, Akutan, Adak, Atka, King Cove, Saint Paul, and the Aleutians East Borough, according to the report.

Although the report has just been released, a 7-page executive summary of the weaponized document was published in February,  and distributed at an Unalaska City Council meeting by Trident Seafoods’ Chief Legal Officer Joe Plesha.  That meeting has been called a ‘side show’, with the main show now being the council meetings themselves.

The NPFMC took its first formal look at various proposals last week and is expected to spend the next two years considering a range of alternatives from the various sectors of the groundfish industry, according to Unalaska Mayor Frank Kelty, who attended the meeting in Kodiak.

The issue is based around whether the increased use of motherships to purchase cod at sea is destabilizing to the shore-side sector.  The shore-side sector wants to retain their traditional share of the cod quota in the Bering Sea.  However, in the past two years the volume of cod purchased directly from vessels by catcher-processors in the Amendment 80 fleet has increased.

The issue came to a head when the Pacific Seafood Processors blocked a congressional waiver for F/V America’s Finest owner, Fishermen’s Finest.  America’s Finest was determined by the Coast Guard to be in violation of the Jones Act because it used more than the allowable amount of foreign steel. The processors wanted any waiver to come with a prohibition on catcher processors purchasing cod as motherships.

Representatives of the Amendment 80 fleet said such a prohibition would cripple their business plans.

As a result of this opposition, Congress has twice failed to grant a waiver to America’s Finest, and the vessel is now up for sale, at a substantial loss.

The current controversy harkens back to the inshore/offshore fights over pollock between shore plants and factory trawlers in the 1990s. Those bitter allocation battles were ended by the U.S. Congress with the passage of the American Fisheries Act, which permanently divided the resource.

An acrimonious debate is again taking shape.

Frank Kelty, mayor of Unalaska and a vocal supporter of the shore-plants, was upset when Fishermen’s Finest expressed opposition to state sanctioned local fish taxes.  Kelty also faced a recall election in Unalaska, which he survived.  Now Kelty has called remarks about him by Fisherman’s Finest’s Seattle publicist, Paul Queary, “threatening”.

Although tempers can get hot, the arduous council decision making process has just started.  Like recreational halibut, bycatch management in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery, bycatch affecting halibut and salmon, and the proverbial inshore / offshore fight, these issues all have real economic consequences on both sides.

The job before the council will also be one of maintaining the status quo while working out the options to resolve the conflict.  Toward that end, the one decision the council made was to separate the issue of Adak’s set aside cod quota from the broader issue of mothership purchases.  The council will treat the two independently.

This year processing in Adak was sufficient to reach the threshold to use most of the set aside quota, but still there was controversy when other vessels steamed out to legitimately fish cod trips in the Western Aleutians and deliver back to Dutch Harbor.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Restrictions could tighten as data reveals salmon inflation

June 12, 2018 — The number of king salmon returning to an Alaska river has been inflated for decades, according to recent state data.

The state now is recommending that the body governing the Bering Sea pollock fishery adopt this new information about the Kuskokwim River, KYUK-AM reported .

If it does, restrictions on the fleet’s bycatch of king salmon could tighten.

Returns have been below this threshold since at least 2010, according to new data from the Alaska Fish and Game Department. Meanwhile, the Bering Sea pollock fleet has hauled in tens of thousands of king salmon each year, caught incidentally. Less than 3 percent of those kings are estimated to have been bound for western Alaska rivers.

With fewer kings swimming up the Kuskokwim River, fishermen have been told by state, federal, and tribal managers to fish less along the river. But fishermen have pointed downstream and said the problem is further away — in the Bering Sea.

“To me, I think more should be done out in the ocean,” said Darren Deacon, Tribal Chief of the Native Village of Kalskag, during a recent teleconference hosted by the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission. “If we’re going to suffer in these rivers — every person, every village, every tribe is suffering — the trawling fleets should feel the same pain.”

Read the full story at the Associated Press

Alaska: With New Report, CVRF Continues Its Fight for More Fish

May 9, 2018 — CVRF is one of six nonprofit groups that manage NOAA’s Community Development Quota (CDQ) program. CDQ was set up in 1992 to bring money into cash-strapped Western Alaska communities by setting aside a portion of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries for local commercial use.

Coastal Villages has long been advocating for more fish. Michelle Humphrey is the group’s outreach manager.

According to the report, prepared by the Seattle-based research firm Community Attributes, the most impoverished communities in Western Alaska are served by CVRF and the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC). These two represent nearly 70 percent of the total CDQ-eligible population. But they receive only about 40 percent of the total CDQ quota.

Sarah Marrinan is an economist with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which oversees the CDQ program. She says when the program started in the 1990s, each CDQ group submitted a business plan to the state, which determined the allocations based on a variety of factors.

Read the full story at KNOM

 

Funding for Alaska’s commercial fisheries division in good shape, with $300K going to chinook project

April 30, 2018 — A shuffle in some funding leaves Alaska’s commercial fisheries division in good shape to manage the resources and target important projects across the state.

At first glance, the $69 million operating budget for FY19 appears to be down slightly from last year’s $72.3 million, but that’s not the case.

“Most of that difference is a sort of ‘cleanup’ in authority we no longer had funding for, such as the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, test fishing and some interagency items. The rest is due to (a) $1.1 million shortfall in Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission revenue, which was made up from other department funds,” said Scott Kelley, commercial fisheries division director.

Added to the budget was a nearly $1 million unrestricted increment offered by Rep. Dan Ortiz of Ketchikan, which got the nod from Alaska lawmakers.

The extra money will be distributed among 11 projects in four regions: Southeast, Central, Westward and the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim, or AYK.

 The biggest project focuses on research to help determine the causes of declining chinook salmon.

“It’s a $300,000 project for a juvenile chinook marine survey in the Bering Sea,” Kelley said. “Almost the first thing I get asked at meetings around the state is what’s going on with king salmon. That project looks at the early marine survival, which is where we think these mortality events are most affecting the species. It’s the only project in the state that really gives us a first look at what’s going on there.”

Other projects back on the funding track include Southeast and Togiak herring research, westward salmon weirs, Southeast sablefish research and Prince William Sound Tanner crab.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Alaska: Halibut faces headwinds as catches drop 10%

March 29, 2018 — Pacific halibut catches for 2018 won’t decline as severely as initially feared, but the fishery faces headwinds from several directions.

Federal fishery managers announced just a few days before the March 24 start of the halibut opener that commercial catches for Alaska will be down 10 percent for a total of 17.5 million pounds.

The industry was on tenterhooks awaiting the catch information, which typically is announced by the International Pacific Halibut Commission in late January. However, representatives from the U.S. and Canada could not agree on how to apportion the halibut catches in fishing regions that stretch from the west coast and British Columbia to the Bering Sea.

“The Canadians felt there was justification in the survey and commercial fishery data that, in concert with a long-held position that the IPHC’s apportionment scheme was not accurate, supported a higher catch limit. They were also opposed to the slow pace the U.S. has taken in reducing its bycatch of halibut in the Bering Sea,” said Peggy Parker of Seafoodnews.com.

The impasse put the decision in the laps of federal managers at NOAA Fisheries in Washington, D.C., who were pushed to the wire to get the halibut catch limits and regulations on the rule books in time for the fishery start.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

 

Alaska: Decline in Pacific halibut fishery not as severe as feared

March 26, 2018 — Pacific halibut catches for 2018 won’t decline as severely as initially feared, but the fishery faces headwinds from several directions.

Federal fishery managers announced just a few days before the March 24 start of the halibut opener that commercial catches for Alaska will be down 10 percent for a total of 17.5 million pounds.

The industry was on tenterhooks awaiting the catch information, which typically is announced by the International Pacific Halibut Commission in late January. However, representatives from the U.S. and Canada could not agree on how to apportion the halibut catches in fishing regions that stretch from the West Coast and British Columbia to the Bering Sea.

“The Canadians felt there was justification in the survey and commercial fishery data that, in concert with a long-held position that the IPHC’s apportionment scheme was not accurate, supported a higher catch limit. They were also opposed to the slow pace the U.S. has taken in reducing its bycatch of halibut in the Bering Sea,” said Peggy Parker of Seafoodnews.com.

The impasse put the decision in the laps of federal managers at NOAA Fisheries in Washington, D.C., who were pushed to the wire to get the halibut catch limits and regulations on the rule books in time for the fishery start.

Adding to the halibut drama are reports of hefty holdovers of fish in freezers, and competition again from Atlantic halibut from eastern Canada.

Prices for Alaska halibut are typically very high for the season’s first deliveries and then decrease after a few weeks. Last year they started out topping $7 per pound to fishermen at major ports. Prices remained in the $5-$6 range for the duration of the eight-month fishery, prompting a push-back from buyers who complained of “price fatigue” and switched their sourcing to less-expensive Atlantic fish.

How that scenario plays out this year remains to be seen, but the combination of fish inventories and availability from elsewhere will likely provide a downward push on Alaska halibut prices.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Marketing campaign aims to convince consumers that ‘ugly’ crabs can be just as tasty

March 20, 2018 — “It’s what’s on the inside that counts” is the message Alaska crab marketers are pushing to encouraging their customers to put appearances aside.

“We’re telling them to ‘get ugly,'” said Tyson Fick, executive director of the trade group, Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, speaking of the new campaign launched partnership with the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute last week at the big Seafood Expo in Boston.

The promotion showcases Alaska crabs with darker, discolored shells, or those that are scarred or adorned with barnacles that may be less visually appealing to shoppers.

“It’s the initial step in a campaign to raise awareness among retailers, restaurants and consumers,” said Jeremy Woodrow, ASMI communications director. “We’re saying ‘go ahead, tell your customers to get ugly. After all, it’s what’s on the inside that counts.”

“Ugly crab is safe and delicious to eat, it just isn’t as pretty,” says a flyer distributed at Boston, explaining that shell appearance varies based on crab maturity and timing of the molt. It says that shell variations demonstrate “the authentic nature of seafood caught in the wild,” and that “purchasing ugly crab is a way to support our planet’s wild resources.”

The Get Ugly team is modeling Alaska crab after similar image enhancement efforts underway by farmers.

“We’re taking a page out of the book of what some fruits and vegetable have done — that a blemish doesn’t affect the taste of the thing, and with crab, the meat fill might even be better,” Fick said, adding that avoiding food waste and improving sustainability are also part of the message.

Creating more customers for less-attractive crab also would improve fishermen’s bottom lines, as the less-pretty product drags down prices.

“It is graded at the processor and may be graded further at the repacker. There may be several grades for off-color shells depending on the species, quantity and other factors. It varies from year to year,” said Jake Jacobsen, director of the Inter-Cooperative Exchange which negotiates prices for most Bering Sea crabbers.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News