PAC I F I C
ENVIRONMENT
HOOK, LINE, & TRAWLER Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea by Jennifer Castner, Artur Maiss, Whit Sheard, Gennady Evsikov Edited by Leah Zimmerman
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Executive Summary and Recommendations To the average American or Russian, the Bering Sea is a little known and exotic place—perhaps it is not even clear where to pinpoint this body of water on a world map. To those who depend upon the Bering Sea for sustenance, financial security, and cultural traditions, however, it holds a much more significant place. Even those who cannot find it on a map unknowingly depend upon the Bering Sea for its bounty of fish and other seafood products. The Bering Sea is bounded on the south by the Aleutian-Komandorsky archipelago and nestled between the coasts of Alaska (United States) and Kamchatka, Koryakia, and Chukotka (Russia). The Sea provides America with 40-50% of its total annual seafood production and Russia with 2-5% of its production. Bering Sea fisheries have always been susceptible to change; commercial fisheries conducted in present times are still impacted by intensive commercial reductions of fish and marine mammal populations in the 1950s. Given the Bering Sea’s ecological, cultural, and economic importance, it is imperative that this ecosystem be managed using a unified approach, toward the goal of sustainability.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{1}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
The Bering Sea can be divided into three geopolitical regions: the Eastern and Western Bering, located respectively within the United States’ and Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); and the Central Bering Sea “Donut Hole,” consisting of international high seas belonging to no single country. Thus, while the Bering Sea is recognized as a single large ecosystem comprised of smaller ecosystems, its management is shared by Russia, the United States, and various international fisheries bodies. While there have been positive management measures taken to address ecosystem stress in all three regions, there is no single unified international management plan that takes into account the entire ecosystem. Instead, the Bering Sea is managed under a complex and disjointed system that focuses largely on commercial extraction. This system, although constantly evolving, is neither sufficiently integrated nor coordinated to ensure that the Bering Sea remains one of the world’s most productive ecosystems.
southwest, along the Kamchatka Peninsula. The nutrient rich waters of the Bering support at least 450 species of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks; 50 species of seabirds; and 25 species of marine mammals.1 The Bering Sea consists of the Bering Sea abyssal basin, the continental slope, the continental shelf, the islands, the mixing zone along the North Pacific Ocean, and the coastal areas of the U.S. and Russian shores. Along the shelf break is a productive area known as the “Green Belt.” This narrow band is thought to extend along both continental shelves (eastern and western) and into the Chukchi Sea. Interactions between upwellings formed by the steep shelf break and tidal transport, canyons, and eddies along the shelf edge create nutrient rich waters and a cascading bloom of life. The unique physical features of the Green Belt have resulted in biological hotspots including the Zhemchung and Pribilof canyons. The area around the Pribilof Islands is considered to be especially biologically rich due to the proximity of these large undersea canyons and nutrient rich waters, which support large concentrations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals.
This report will present a brief overview of the Bering Sea ecosystem and the impacts associated with industrial fisheries. More specifically, it will focus on several themes: ◗
Russian and U.S. management structures
◗
Commercial fleet structures
◗
Impacts from specific commercial fishing gear
Benthic – or seafloor – habitat in the Bering Sea consists of living and nonliving substrates. Nonliving substrates include boulders, cobbles, sand waves, and other seafloor components. Living substrates include macroalgae, bryozoans, stalked ascidians, corals, sponges, and anemones. Living substrates such as cold-water corals are extremely slow-growing, and may take over 100 years to reach maximum size. These substrates harbor rich populations of groundfish, and have been documented in association with the life stage of almost all important commercial species.
While there is no simple solution to increasing the effectiveness of fisheries management in the Bering Sea, there are important measures that can be taken immediately to increase the likelihood of preserving this ecologically unique ecosystem. Indeed, there are positive examples on both sides of the Bering from which to draw. Specific recommendations that can be implemented immediately include: ◗
Bering Sea Fisheries and Fishery Management
An effective international agreement and commission to coordinate management
◗
Increased scientific research and coordination
◗
A transition to Ecosystem-Based Management across the entire Bering
◗
Further restrictions on harmful gear, such as bottom trawling and large-scale driftnets, throughout the Bering
Groundfish make up the majority of the catch in the Bering Sea. The major targets of U.S. fisheries are pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish (including yellowfin sole, rock sole, and arrowtooth flounder), sablefish, rockfish, Atka mackerel, halibut, and crab. There are 15 primary commercial targets in the Western Bering: pollock, cod, halibut, herring, perch, Atka mackerel, flounder, Far Eastern cod, goby, skates and sharks, squid, grenadier, salmon, shrimp, and crab. These fisheries are prosecuted with many types of fishing gear; major gear types include pelagic and bottom trawls, driftnets, set nets, Dutch seines, longlines, traps and pots, purse seines, and dredges.
The Bering Sea Ecosystem The Bering Sea is a semi-enclosed northern extension of the North Pacific Ocean that covers nearly three million km2 and includes unusual geographic features such as an enormous continental shelf with a gentle gradient and seven of the largest submarine canyons in the world. The Bering Sea is fed by water from the Gulf of Alaska in the south. In the north, this nutrient rich water exits the Bering Sea through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea. Water also exits the Bering Sea to the
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Alaska is the United States’ leading fishing grounds, with landings totaling 2.3 million metric tons of fish in 2002. These landings include 1.5 million metric tons of pollock, the largest single fishery in the country, with an approximate ex-vessel value of $210 million. Alaska is also responsible for 92% of the wild salmon production in the U.S. – approximately 237,000 metric tons in 2002.2 Of the 2.3 million metric tons of total
{2}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
catch, nearly 2 million metric tons comes from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries management areas.3
by commercial fishing companies. International cooperation in management of the Bering Sea ecosystem is complicated by what Russian fishing interests perceive as an ongoing border dispute with the United States. The current observed maritime boundary, known colloquially in Russian as the “Baker-Shevardnadze Line,” was agreed to in 1990. However, the Supreme Soviet failed to ratify the border before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian Duma has refused to ratify the agreement, arguing that the boundary deprives the Russian fishing industry of significant pollock stocks. The U.S. Coast Guard and Russian government officially observe the “Baker-Shevardnadze Line,” although Russian fishing vessels sometimes cross the line, resulting in vessel seizures and deepened distrust.
While there are some similarities between regulations by the Russian and U.S. governments on fishing and fishing gear usage in the Bering Sea, the two countries ultimately take very different approaches to fisheries management. Although U.S. laws include conservation mandates for fisheries and habitat, Russian laws regarding fisheries are in some ways more stringent than American laws. For example, there is a near total ban on bottom trawling in the Western Bering, while harmful bottom trawling continues legally on the U.S. side of the sea. However, Russian law has its own problems. One issue is the lack of requirements for an independent and non-corrupt observer network on Russian fishing vessels. In addition, the uncertainty and lack of transparency that characterize Russia’s transition to a market economy also plague the fishing industry. Even though Russia has specific fishing regulations, direct enforcement of these regulations on open waters is often weak and inconsistent. This leads to overfishing and illegal bottom trawling, among other problems.
Impacts from Fishing Gear Different fishing gear types have different impacts upon the marine environment. These impacts include both indirect effects, such as reductions of biomass and ecosystem-wide changes in productivity, and direct effects including increased mortality of benthic species, increased food for scavenging species, and habitat loss.
Bottom trawling has extensively impacted fisheries habitat in the U.S. side of the Bering Sea. Research has shown negative impacts particularly to old-growth corals and other rocky areas that are critical to fisheries habitat. Recent developments on the U.S. side indicate a willingness to begin addressing these issues. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), a federal commercial fisheries advisory body, reached a unanimous decision in early 2005 to recommend the closure of 375,000 square miles – or 60 percent – of the Bering Sea’s Aleutian Island management sub-area. Efforts are still needed to implement this decision, which will help reduce coral bycatch and protect deep water corals near the Aleutian Islands. The decision applies a needed precautionary approach and provides a step toward the ecosystem-based management needed in the North Pacific to reverse the declines of its marine mammals, seabirds, and other plants and animals. Following this important first step, U.S. management agencies should review whether the closure area should be expanded to other areas in the Bering Sea.
Experts generally agree that bottom trawling has the most extensive impacts on the marine environment. Direct effects include smoothing of sediments, dragging rocks and boulders, resuspension and mixing of sediments, removal of seagrass, damage to corals, and damage or removal of epibenthic organisms.4 Studies in Alaska demonstrate that highly trawled areas in the Bering Sea are significantly different than untrawled areas, with the overall diversity of sedentary taxa reduced in highly trawled areas.5 A survey of various studies both inside and outside Bering Sea waters led the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to conclude that bottom trawls cause both short-term changes in infauna, epifauna, megafauna, and substrates as well as persistent changes in megafauna communities.6 The Fisheries Service also noted that dredges, longlines, pots, and pelagic trawls also cause damage to habitat, but not at the same intensity as bottom trawls. Although bottom trawling is highly restricted in Russia, it is fairly common practice to rig pelagic trawls for use as bottom trawls. Pelagic trawls used as bottom trawls wreak even more destruction on seafloor habitat than traditional bottom trawling.
Regulatory and management regimes on both sides of the Bering have several shared limitations. One of the most serious issues relates to conflicts of interest between commercial fishing entities and government policy-making and regulation. For example, the NPFMC (as well as all other U.S. federal fisheries management councils) lacks a clause to prevent conflicts of interest, unlike most other federal U.S. regulatory bodies. As a result, commercial fishing representatives are overly influential in allocating quotas and opening areas to fishing. In Russia, it is common for successful entrepreneurs, businesses, and commercial fishermen to promote their own interests into political and regulatory positions in federal regional and local governments. In practice, Russian fishing quotas, total allowable catch levels, and enforcement efforts are highly influenced and manipulated
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Large-scale driftnetting also causes significant impacts to the Bering Sea. Although banned for more than a decade in international waters due to a U.N. Convention, large-scale driftnetting continues to be allowed in Russia’s EEZ under a bilateral agreement between Russia and Japan. Driftnet impacts include large catches of immature fish and the resultant impact to target species’ population structures; the unintended bycatch and mortality of whales, dolphins, pinnipeds, sea birds, turtles, and
{3}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
benthic habitat impacts and developing and implementing consistent and ecologically-sustainable transboundary Russian-American agreements. In the Western Bering, driftnets larger than 2.5 kilometers in length should be totally banned in order to bring Russia up to international and U.S. standards, while the Eastern Bering is in need of further research and restrictions on bottom-trawling.
sharks; and “ghost fishing,” where nets lost at sea continue to entrap marine life. Although all gear causes impacts to the environment, it is generally agreed that large-scale driftnets in the Western Bering and bottom trawls in the Eastern Bering are causing disproportionate harm.
Recommendations
◗
Improved enforcement, monitoring of commercial fishing, and observer programs. Inconsistency and a lack of coordination are the primary issue here. In the United States, current rules on observers require only partial coverage depending on the size of the vessel. In Russia, mainly international fishing vessels are required to have observers on board. Enforcement, while both politically and financially better supported in the United States’ EEZ, requires additional technical resources, funding, legislation, and political will in Russia. One of the biggest problems of enforcement in Russia involves illegal bottom trawling; illegally modified pelagic trawls must be stopped and restrictions on traditional bottom trawls should continue to be strictly enforced. Satellite and GPS monitoring are both excellent new technologies that must be better and more broadly utilized in this process. Other countries, such as Korea and Japan must increase their efforts in helping Russia and the United States enforce existing international and regional agreements on fish landings and gear enforcement.
◗
Increased collaboration between all Bering Sea stakeholders, resulting in industry outreach to the larger community, especially the indigenous community. The issue here is not a struggle between conservationists, scientists, and commercial fishing companies, rather an ongoing effort to sustainably manage the Bering Sea’s resources for the benefit of all community members as well as the rich life in the sea itself.
◗
Creation of an adaptively managed network of marine protected areas, including no-take marine reserves. Perhaps no recommendation has more potential to protect the Bering Sea than the creation of marine protected areas.
The negative impacts associated with gear usage in the Bering Sea are only one of many challenges to managing fisheries. Recommendations for specific protections from large-scale driftnets and bottom trawls are simply a piece of the overall puzzle. While calling for an end to these destructive practices is simple enough, complex issues linger over managing an international ecosystem that provides a large yield of economic, cultural, and ecological returns. Larger solutions must therefore be considered. Specific recommendations on how to achieve a sustainable Bering Sea include: ◗
◗
An international agreement and commission to coordinate management of bioresources. Currently, there is a great deal of disparity and a lack of comprehensive multi-level coordination between Russian and United States regulations on fishing gear and fisheries, rules regarding onboard observers, and enforcement. Only by taking a long-term view on resources management and international cooperation based on an integrated and unified standard for all resource users, can we ensure sustainable Bering Sea fisheries protected in part by habitat and species conservation. Increased scientific research and coordination. There is a need for more specific data on fisheries and the impacts of gear use, particularly in the Western Bering. Without further studies, it is difficult, for example, to quantify the impacts of legal and illegal bottom trawling on habitat in the Bering Sea. Coordination should be improved between Russian and American scientific communities working in the Bering. This coordination could be accomplished through the establishment of a Scientific Advisory Board as a part of an international agreement on Bering Sea management.
◗
Shifting to Ecosystem-Based Management. An ecosystembased transboundary management regime must be negotiated and put into place, carefully designed to address the needs of ecosystems, rather than political and business interests.
◗
Further restrictions on harmful gear such as bottom trawling and large-scale driftnets. Restrictions should include both spatial restrictions and conversion to cleaner gear, with the assurance that commercial bottom trawling regulations and fisheries are managed with the parallel goals of minimizing
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
The health and biodiversity of the Bering Sea ecosystem are essential to the livelihoods of people in both the U.S. and Russia. The fish of the Bering Sea provide sustenance to people throughout each nation, and the communities that live along the shores of the Sea - in Alaska, Chukotka, Koryakia, and Kamchatka - depend on its bounty. By implementing these recommendations, we have a vital opportunity to reduce the negative impacts of fishing gear in the Bering Sea and to adopt an ecosystem-based approach that will allow for sustainable and productive management of the Sea.
{4}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Table of Contents Note to Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 The Bering Sea Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Water Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Seafloor Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 The Green Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Benthic Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 International, Russian, and US Regulations on Fishing and Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 International Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Eastern Bering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Western Bering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Gear Use in the Bering Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Eastern Bering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Western Bering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Gear Impacts in the Bering Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Impacts by Gear Type: trawls, Danish seines, purse seines, pots/traps, longlines, set nets, driftnets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Eastern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Bottom Trawling and Habitat Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Bycatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Western . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Bottom Trawling and Habitat Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Bycatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 An International Agreement and Commission to Coordinate Management of Bioresources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Continued Research and International Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Enforcement, Monitoring, and Observing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Gear Restrictions and Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Ecosystem-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Marine Protected Areas and Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Appendices A – US Regulations and Management of the Bering Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 B – Russian Regulations and Management of the Bering Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 C – Fishing Gear Used in the Bering Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 D – Salmon Losses in Driftnet Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 E – Bird Bycatch in Salmon Driftnet Industry (Western Bering) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 cover photos: Greenpeace, Vladimir Burkanov
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{5}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Note to the Reader
Gennady Evsikov was born in 1946 in the Russian Far East. In 1969 he graduated from the Far Eastern Fisheries University and went to work at the Pacific Scientific Research Fisheries Center (TINRO), where he stayed for approximately 8 years.
This report was made possible by generous support from the Alaska Conservation Foundation. The following data represent a compilation of materials gathered on both sides of the Bering Sea. Narrative text was combined from three separate reports, authored by Whit Sheard, Gennady Evsikov, and Artur Maiss. Additional primary source materials were taken from a number of scientific institutions and other dependable sources. A complete list of references is provided at the end of the report. While the authors share a common goal of promoting sustainable management of the Bering Sea, different viewpoints on how these goals should be accomplished are inevitable. In this report, the authors attempt to reconcile differences and to produce a list of basic recommendations – logical and tangible ways to improve fishing gear usage and reduce negative gear impacts in the Bering Sea.
From1977-1990, Evsikov worked in the design department of the Far Eastern Technical Fisheries Organization in pre-project research. For the next decade he worked as an expedition leader for KraiRybakKolkhozSoyuz (“Regional Fishing Collective Farm”). He has also been an instructor at Far Eastern Fisheries University. He completed “all but dissertation” studies at TINRO. Since 2004, he has served as an expert consultant on the impacts of commercial fishing gears on resource ecology, the environment, and marine habitats in Far Eastern seas. Currently, he has focused his research on a variety of issues in ecology and fishing gear certification, as well as management theory and the regulation of multiple commercial fisheries in the Russian Far East.
Worth noting is the difference in data available for the Eastern and Western regions of the Bering Sea. In general, scientific data for the Eastern Bering is more readily available, especially data regarding seafloor composition and the effects of bottom trawling on habitats. One of our recommendations is for continued scientific research and coordination.
Jennifer Castner is the Russia Program Director for Pacific Environment. At Pacific Environment, she plays an important role in the work of the International Bering Sea Forum, in the Altai region and Russian marine campaign activities. Jennifer has extensive experience in Russian-American cross-cultural community work and program management in the Bay Area not-forprofit community, working with such organizations as Jewish Vocational Service, Heart to Heart International Children’s Medical Alliance, and the American Council of Teachers of Russian. Jennifer is fluent in Russian, in addition to being conversant in Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian) and German. Jennifer studied Russian at the Moscow Energy Institute, received her Bachelor of Arts in Russian Language and Linguistics from Bryn Mawr College, and completed advanced Croatian/Serbian course work at the University of California at Berkeley.
Whit Sheard is an Environmental Affairs Consultant and was formerly the Fish Conservation Program Manager for the Ocean Conservancy. Whit’s undergraduate work was at Miami University of Ohio, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He later attended the University of Oregon and earned both a Masters of Science and a Juris Doctorate, with an emphasis on natural resource management. Before relocating to Alaska, Whit litigated salmon and forestry issues in the Pacific Northwest. His work now focuses primarily on taking a science-based approach to ensuring healthy fish populations and protecting habitat in the North Pacific. Whit is a member of the International Bering Sea Forum.
Pacific Environment is a California-based nonprofit organization devoted to protecting the living environment of the Pacific Rim.
Artur Maiss is an assistant in the Far East office of the Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia (ISAR). For the past five years, he has been involved in preserving Kamchatka’s marine biological resources. He has organized multiple public events in the region, such as meetings with representatives of both regional and local administrations, members of NGOs, Kamchatka’s organizations of indigenous ethnic groups, and fishery businesses. Artur is also involved in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information on the usage of biological resources of the Northern Pacific Region. He has been professionally active in environmental development since 1999, first as a head of environmental camp for children (the NGO “Pilot”), and then as manager of marine programs for the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts. He obtained a bachelor’s degree at Kamchatka State Academy of Fish Industry and a Mechanical Engineering degree in Fish Industry.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{6}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
The Bering Sea Ecosystem The Bering Sea, situated between 52º and 66º North and 162º East and 157º West, is a semi-enclosed northern extension of the North Pacific Ocean. The Western part of the Bering, out to 200 miles from shore, is Russian territory, and the Eastern part belongs to the United States. The section between, which makes up 10% of the Sea, is known as the “Donut Hole” and is considered international waters. At its longest and widest, the Donut Hole is about 2000 km by 1500 km. Altogether, the Bering Sea covers nearly 3 million km2 and includes unusual geographic features such as an enormous continental shelf with an extremely gentle gradient and seven of the largest submarine canyons in the world. The nutrient rich waters of the Bering Sea support at least 450 species of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks; 50 species of seabirds; and 25 species of marine mammals.7 Water Transportation The Bering Sea is fed by water from the Gulf of Alaska that passes through the 1900 km arc-shaped Aleutian-Komandorsky archipelago in the south. In the north, this nutrient rich water exits the Bering Sea through the 80-km wide Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea. Water also exits the Bering Sea along the Kamchatka Peninsula to the southwest. The Sea is fed by warm water from the Kuroshio Current flowing between the Komandorsky and Aleutian Islands. The
Oiyasio current brings in cold arctic waters from the north. The meeting place of these two currents forms frontal zones, along whose borders is a nutrient-rich area of phyto- and zooplankton. Similar zones exist along the Aleutian Islands between St. Lawrence Island and the Bering Strait, as well as in Anadyr Bay. Total plankton biomass in this nutrient-rich zone is, on average, eight times greater than in the Barents Sea. Physiography The Bering Sea can be divided into six distinct zones: the Bering Sea abyssal basin (2800-4000m), the continental slope (200-2800m), the continental shelf (0-200m), the islands, the mixing zone along the North Pacific Ocean, and the coastal areas of the U.S. and Russian shores. Of the Eastern Bering Sea’s 2.3 million km2, 43% is deep water abyssal basin, 13% continental slope, and 44% continental shelf. The abyssal basin is generally considered flat, but is marked by several significant features, which include the Aleutian shelf, Shirshov Ridge, and Bowers Bank. The Aleutian Trench is another prominent feature which affects water and nutrient transport. The continental slope is steep and consists of diverse habitat for many species. The continental shelf comprises an area of approximately one million km2. 80% of the shelf lies in the Eastern Bering, where it ranges from 4-46 km wide along the Aleutian Islands to 500-800 km wide in the northern reaches. The remainder of the shelf is an 80-160 km stretch along Russia’s Koryak coast and Kamchatka Peninsula. Seafloor Composition
Figure 1. Surficial sediment textural characteristics for a portion of the continental shelf. 9
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{7}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
The Eastern Bering Sea benthic sediment composition includes a wide range of mud, sand, and gravel habitats. Sand and silt predominate, with finer particle size generally occurring farther from shore. The southeast and eastern inner shelf (0-50m) is marked by sandy gravel and gravelly sand which becomes sand farther offshore. The middle shelf (50-100m) and outer shelf (100-200m) are marked by muddy sand and sandy mud. The Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf can be delineated into four sediment habitat types: (1) sand substrates with some gravel around the shallow eastern and southern perimeter and along the Pribilof Islands; (2) sand and mud mixtures along the central shelf and out to 100m; (3) silty mud with some sand west of a line between St. Matthew and St. Lawrence islands; and (4) a variety of substrates north and east of St. Lawrence Island (see Figure 1).8
western and southwestern Bering along a branch of the Oiyasio current. The unique physical features of the Green Belt result in biological hotspots including the Zhemchung and Pribilof canyons. The area around the Pribilof Islands is considered to be especially biologically rich due to the proximity of these large undersea canyons and nutrient-rich waters; this region in turn supports significant concentrations of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Benthic Habitat Benthic habitat in the Bering Sea consists of living and nonliving substrates. Nonliving substrates include boulders, cobbles, sand waves, and other seafloor components. Living substrates include macroalgae, bryozoans, stalked ascidians, corals, sponges, and anemones. It is generally agreed that benthic habitat is at greater risk from fishing gear impacts than non-benthic habitat in the water column.11 Of this benthic habitat, large bodied, attached, and emergent epifauna are particularly vulnerable to damage.12 Furthermore, several studies indicate that fauna in stable gravel, mud, and biogenic sediments are at higher risk of damage than less consolidated coarse sediments, such as sand.13
The Aleutian Islands region, approximately 2260 km long, contains a wide variety of substrates, including pebbles, cobbles, boulders, and rock. Relatively unexplored, there is no data to describe the spatial variation amongst these habitats. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries is currently researching these habitats and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center has been developing remote camera devices which may alleviate the cost prohibitive nature of mapping this enormous area of complex subhabitats.
While cold-water corals, sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, and other benthic habitat have been documented in both bycatch from commercial fishing gear and during fisheries’ survey trawls, their spatial extent and diversity are largely unknown. In July 2002, NMFS sent a manned submersible to investigate coral and sponge habitat in the Central Aleutian Islands. This research continued in 2003 and 2004. Preliminary observations have concluded that corals and sponges are widely distributed throughout the region and that high density areas of taxonomically diverse corals, sponges, and other benthic habitat exist.14
In the Western Bering, the seafloor is extremely varied to the north, east, and south/southwest of the Cape of Navarin. These regions, with depths from 20-80 meters, are rife with seafloor obstacles: cliffs, canyons boulders, terraces, etc. Fishing in this area can only take place with scrupulously detailed maps classifying risk to fishing gear. Similar relief continues for some distance to the south and southwest of the Cape of Navarin. The character and condition of the seafloor improves significantly at depths greater than 100150 meters, as well as along the approach to the KorfoKaraginsky and Karaginsky regions.
Corals, members of the phylum Cnidaria, in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands have an unknown distribution. Most major commercially fished species, including gadids (such as cod and pollock), rockfish, flatfish, and Atka mackerel, have been documented in association with corals.15 Corals are slow-growing, and many take over 100 years to reach their maximum size.16
In the Korfo-Karaginsky and Karaginsky regions, the character of the seafloor is more or less the same as along the BakerShevardnadze line.10 In the Olyutorsky Bay, however, approximately 10-15 miles offshore, there is a rocky cliff, which is especially hazardous to the multi-depth trawl herring fishery. In western Olyutorsky Bay, where salmon set netting occurs, substrates are generally favorable.
Some corals, such as Paragorgia spp. (bubblegum coral) and Primnoa spp. (red tree coral) are thought to be particularly important for fish habitat due to both their long-lived nature and the extensive size of their colonies.17 Sponges, members of the phylum Porifera, are one of the oldest multi-cellular organisms on the planet. Sponges accounted for 67% of all living substrate observed in the Aleutian Islands and 16% of all living substrate observed in the Bering Sea.18 Areas with records of large sponge catches include the shelf north of the Alaska Peninsula, near St. George Island, and across the Aleutian archipelago, with the largest Aleutian sponge catch on Petrel Bank.19
The Green Belt Along the continental shelf break is a productive area known as the “Green Belt� of the Bering Sea. This narrow band is thought to extend around the entire continental shelf and into the Chukchi Sea. Interactions between tidal transport, canyons and eddies along the shelf edge and upwellings formed by the steep shelf break create nutrient rich waters and a cascading bloom of life. Immature pollock and other fish and non-fish species migrate along this zone into the Bay of Anadyr and the
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Bryozoans, members of the phylum Bryozoa, are also common on hard substrates throughout the Bering Sea. Approximately
{8}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
90-180 species of bryozoans are found in the Bering Sea, and most are attached to rocks, bivalve shells, gastropod shells, and crab shells.20 Bryozoans accounted for 7% of all Aleutian Island and 6% of all Bering Sea living substrate observations, with large concentrations around Bristol Bay, on the Bering Sea shelf, and in the Western Aleutians near Kiska Island.21
There are 15 primary commercial targets in the Western Bering: pollock, cod, halibut, herring, perch, Atka mackerel, flounder, Far Eastern cod, goby, skates and sharks, squid, grenadier, salmon, shrimp, and crab. In addition, targets categorized as “other” by the fisheries regulations may also be allocated quotas. This category generally refers to species rarely caught as bycatch.
Ascidians, members of the phylum Chordata, were the most common living substrate found in the 1975-2000 Bering Sea fishery survey trawls. Ascidians accounted for 17% of all Aleutian Island and 43% of all Bering Sea living substrate records.22
International, Russian, and U.S. Regulations on Fishing and Fishing Gear While there are some similarities between regulations by the Russian and U.S. governments on fishing and fishing gear usage in the Bering Sea, the two countries ultimately take very different approaches to fisheries regulations. Each side would do well to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the other.
Anemones, Sea Pens, and Sea Whips are, like corals, members of the phylum Cnidaria. Anemones are broadly distributed and accounted for 33% of living substrate recorded in the Bering Sea and 8% of the living substrate observed in the Aleutian Islands.23
Regulatory and management regimes on both sides of the Bering have several shared limitations. It will be helpful for our purposes to explore the specific rules and regulations written into law on both sides of the Bering Sea as well as existing international management regimes and practices. Inconsistency and lack of enforcement are the two biggest obstacles to productive fishing regulation in the Sea. Our intent is to call attention to problem areas and to make the case for both increased international management efforts and developing mutually-consistent regulations across the Bering Sea that will benefit both American and Russian fishing industries while protecting fisheries and habitat from needless destruction.
All of the aforementioned benthic species, except for corals, are commonly associated with populations of flatfish and gadids. Fisheries Alaska is the United States’ leading fishing grounds, with a total catch of 2.2 million metric tons (t), a retained catch of 2.0 million t, and an ex-vessel value of $608 million in 2003. Of the total catch, approximately 2 million metric tons comes from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries management areas.24 Landings from the Bering Sea accounted for 51% of the weight and 18% of the ex-vessel value of total U.S. domestic landings in 2003. The value of the 2003 catch after primary processing was approximately $1.5 billion.25 The U.S. government has set Bering Sea catch levels for 2005 and 2006 at approximately two million metric tons. These levels exclude salmon, but the landings do include 1.5 million metric tons of pollock, the largest single fishery in the country, with an approximate ex-vessel value of $210 million. Alaska is also responsible for 92% of the wild salmon production in the U.S., which was approximately 237,000 metric tons in 2002.26
International “Donut Hole” Management The May 1988 Agreement on Mutual Fisheries Relations between the U.S. and the USSR set a precedent for RussianU.S. collaboration on Bering Sea management. The greatest concern in the Central Bering has been pollock overfishing and in 1994, the U.S. ratified the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea. Another result of the 1988 Agreement was the establishment of a U.S.-Russian Intergovernmental Committee (ICC). The ICC is a bilateral fisheries agreement meant to use cooperative scientific research to address illegal or unregulated fishing activities on the high seas of the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. There is no permanent Secretariat for the Committee and meetings are held annually, alternating between the U.S. and Russia. The issues discussed by the ICC in recent years include pollock resource sharing, boundary disputes, and enforcement practices. Unfortunately, little action has resulted from these conversations and importantly, the ICC has never addressed fishing gear issues in the Bering Sea.
Groundfish make up the majority of the catch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, with the major targets being pollock (Theragra chalcogramma); Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus); flatfish such as yellowfin sole (Pleuronectes asper), rock sole (Pleuronectes bilineatus), and arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias); sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria); rockfish (Sebastes and Sebastolobus spp.); and Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius). In the western and northwestern Bering Sea, there are approximately 195 species of fish and 150 species of shellfish and mollusks. Generally speaking, biodiversity in the Bering Sea is comparable to that in the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Gulf of Alaska. From a commercial perspective, the most valuable species include 12 flounder species, halibut, herring, crabs, shrimp, and black cod.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Eastern Bering The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) established the primary legal framework for the management of the BSAI [Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands] and GOA [Gulf of Alaska] groundfish fisheries. Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) are intended to satisfy
{9}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
ures in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands management area have been put in place under the Act. NMFS has instead taken a piecemeal approach and implemented several measures whose primary purpose have been to reduce bycatch or incidental take, but that have had a secondary benefit of protecting habitat.29 These measures include limiting gear size, apportioning quotas to the longline fleet to discourage bottom trawl efforts, banning pollock bottom trawling, and closing areas to various gear types to protect specific species.
the requirements of the MSA as well as other federal mandates including NEPA,27 the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and Executive Order (EO) 12898 on Environmental Justice. The MSA contains ten National Standards that serve as overarching policy goals for federal fisheries management. The NPFMC was established by the MSA to serves as a policy advisor to the Secretary of Commerce. Its many responsibilities include the preparation of FMPs and plan amendments for each fishery that require fisheries conservation and management.28
One serious flaw in management of the Eastern Bering concerns conflicts of interest between commercial fishing entities and government policy-making and regulation. For example, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (as well as all other federal fisheries management councils) does not have a strict conflict of interest clause, unlike all other federal U.S. regulatory bodies. As a result, commercial fishing representatives have too much unchecked influence in determining resource allocation and policy.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NPFMC collaboratively manage fisheries subject to the conservation and economic limitations of the MSA and the National Standards, while at the same time considering the mandates of other environmental restrictions and social considerations. In the case of the North Pacific, this includes avoiding adverse modification of critical habitat designated for endangered species, conservation plans designed for MMPA listed species, etc. State managed fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands include crab, Pacific cod, sablefish, herring, and salmon fisheries.
In spite of the abovementioned problems, it should be noted, that the Eastern Bering is one of the most highly regulated and well-managed fisheries in the world. Lessons could be learned from this region. Strict licensing procedures, data collection and reporting, quota systems, certification of product origin, support for regional fisheries management plans, and strengthening of enforcement mechanisms are all options that, if used effectively, have been shown to dramatically reduce the incidence of illegal fishing. When quotas are reached, NMFS shuts down fishing, and boats are tightly regulated by the Coast Guard, by observers, and at the docks. The U.S. Coast Guard watches the border very closely.
The 1996 passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by the U.S. Congress marked a considerable change in the mandate under which the NPFMC and NMFS were to manage fisheries in the United States. One key provision was that managers were directed to designate “Essential Fish Habitat� (EFH) and to minimize the negative impacts to this habitat from fishing. NMFS and the NPFMC, however, after designating all habitats EFH, took no specific management measures to protect them. After conservation organizations litigated the adequacy of the environmental review, rationale, and documentation of this decision, NMFS and the NPFMC were forced to reinitiate the process. A preliminary decision was reached in 2005 to protect some coral and sponge areas in the Aleutian Islands from bottom trawling and other harmful gear types. There were no new protective measures proposed for the rest of the Bering Sea.
In Alaska, the Coast Guard provides critical search and rescue services, as well as surface and air law enforcement patrols to monitor compliance of the U.S. domestic fleet. The foreign fishing activity on the Russian side of the U.S. Russia Maritime Boundary has become of increasing concern. In recent years, the Coast Guard has resorted to near-daily C-130 flights and continuous cutter presence along the boundary line during peak fishing seasons to ensure that the huge foreign fleets, including Russian, Japanese, Polish, Chinese and Taiwan fishing vessels operating near the line do not violate the U.S. EEZ.30
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan (Appendix A) The fisheries of the Bering Sea are managed by NMFS. Although technically considered a joint Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan, much of the data and catch allocation is split out between the two sub-areas. This is largely due to the differing ecology of the regions: the eastern Bering Sea consists of an expansive shallow, sandy, and muddy continental shelf giving away to the slope, whereas the Aleutian Islands region consists of rocky bottoms and a narrow continental shelf. The management plan is generally centered on limited-entry fisheries with tightly controlled quotas.
Western Bering Although U.S. laws reflect conservation values regarding fisheries and habitat, Russian fisheries laws are, in some ways, more restrictive than American laws; for example, while there is a near total ban on bottom trawling in the Western Bering, only in 2005 has bottom trawling seen any significant cutbacks (a 375,000 square mile closure) on the U.S. side of the Sea. Unfortunately, the uncertainty and lack of transparency that characterize Russia’s transition to a market economy also plague the fishing industry. Even though Russia has some tough laws on the books, there is little by way of direct enforcement of these regulations on open waters. This leads to overfishing and
Although the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act was amended in 1996 to require NMFS to designate and protect essential fish habitat, no protective meas-
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{10}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
illegal bottom trawling, amongst other problems.
In response to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), which established an international management regime for anadromous and other highly migratory fish stocks, a coalition of governments initiated a ban on driftnet fishing in international waters. Recognizing the harmful impacts of driftnet gear, Iran, Panama, New Zealand, South Africa, Qatar, and Malta have banned driftnetting altogether in their own EEZ’s; many other governments have implemented bans on large-scale driftnets exceeding 2.5km in length.31
Beginning at the end of 2003, Russian fisheries management underwent a series of significant changes, especially concerning quota allocation. The most important changes include the creation of a payment mechanism for commercial targets of marine bioresources and the establishment of a specific mechanism for allocating and affixing quotas for a 5-year period, including quotas for applicants wishing to fish in bodies of water managed by international fishing agreements.
Unfortunately, not all nations have initiated such regulatory measures regarding large-scale driftnets. Japan, for example, agreed to ban driftnets in international waters in 1993, but allows driftnets up to 13 km in length in Japanese waters. In 1998, Russia officially announced that it would not participate in any commercial driftnetting, but would not comment on its sale of fishing rights – including driftnetting rights – to Japan. Japan continues to conduct a driftnet fishery within the Russian EEZ. Russia is the only nation permitting a large-scale driftnet industry by foreign vessels in its own waters.32
In March 2004, President Vladimir Putin dissolved the Russian State Fisheries Committee and established the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA). The FFA falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and will be responsible for the study of marine resources, development of fisheries management recommendations, construction and maintenance of government fishing vessels, captive breeding and acclimatization of marine resources, and the auction of fishing quotas. The FFA is also charged with the task of creating a state register of marine resources and a list of fisheries regions. The effectiveness of the FFA and the receptivity of the agency to conservation goals remain to be seen—many changes in government structure are still in process, and a significant number of key appointments have yet to be made.
The problem of driftnet use in Russia is not limited to Japanese vessels. In the early 1990’s, Russia began using driftnets to conduct scientific research. Using driftnets for research purposes can be helpful, but the commercial fishing rights sold to Japan make such driftnet fishing unacceptable by established international standards.
For a complete description of recent changes in Russian fisheries management laws and in the FFA’s responsibilities, see Appendix B.
Fisheries management is an inherently politicized and territorial process, and both Russia and U.S. management agencies are sometimes lacking in transparency, accountability, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Regular fluctuations in the fisheries themselves, gaps in science, and frequent adjustments and even upheaval in management policy and regulations, create a great deal of uncertainty, increased competition, and lengthy decisionmaking processes.
Specific marine management regulations for 2004 included explicit quotas for foreign states, scientific research, commercial fishing, indigenous peoples, and sport fishing. Bycatch by gear type and region was minimally regulated, but bottom trawling continues to be extremely limited. There are three Russian agencies responsible for monitoring fishing quotas: commercial councils, onboard inspectors, and shipboard statistical reporting (SSR) transmitted to statistics agencies and the Federal Border Service. Vessels enter and leave fishing areas through control points monitored by patrol ships, and there are strict requirements demanding the presence of satellite monitoring systems for fishing vessels. Enforcement remains an extremely important issue.
Gear Use in the Bering Sea Of all the fishing gear currently in use today, most are net gear: pelagic and bottom trawls, driftnets, set and other nets, Dutch seines, a few types of traps/pots, purse seines, longlines, liftnets, and others. Over the course of centuries, fishing gear has undergone significant changes. Looking at specific gear more closely, however, it is clear that basic physical principles and designs are still intact. For the most part, gear have preserved coverings or surfaces which comprise either a homogenous net or progressively changing mesh with a variety of diameter filaments serving several simple functions: mechanical restraint or limitation of freedom of motion of a target species within a given area, volume or labyrinth, filtration or concentration of the target within the net, entanglement in the mesh, retention on a hook or similar item, all of which result ultimately in capture.
Corruption continues to hinder to Russia’s economic development and can be seen throughout society, government, and industry. Fisheries management is no exception. A related problem is the frequency with which successful entrepreneurs, business people, and commercial fishermen hold political and regulatory positions in federal, regional, and local governments. Russian fishing quotas, total allowable catch levels, and enforcement efforts are highly influenced and manipulated by commercial fishing companies. Russia and Large-Scale Driftnets: A Study of Politics and Fisheries
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
For diagrams of various fishing gear used in the Bering Sea, see
{11}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Appendix C.
Trawl, hook and line (including longline and jigs), and pot gear account for virtually all the catch in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. There are catcher vessels and catcher/processor vessels for each of these three gear groups.
Although there are general principles dictating fishing gear in the Bering Sea, use varies greatly by region and fishery. Because of the variety of fishing methods and the diversity of fisheries and habitats, it is helpful to describe vessels and gear use in specific fisheries on both sides of the Bering Sea.
In the last five years, the trawl catch averaged about 90% of the total catch, while the catches with hook and line gear accounted for 8.1%. Most species are harvested predominately by one type of gear, which typically accounts for 90% or more of the catch. The one exception is Pacific cod; in 2003, 37% (98,000 t) was taken by trawls, 46% (121,000 t) by hook and line gear, and 16% (43,000 t) by pots. In each of the years since 1999, catcher vessels took about 47% of the total catch and catcher/processors took the other 53%. The increase from years prior to 1999 is explained in part by the American Fisheries Act33, which increased the share of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors.
Eastern Bering The Bering Sea groundfish fisheries accounted for the largest share (54%) of the ex-vessel value of all commercial fisheries off Alaska in 2003. The value of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) catch amounted to $168 million – 15% of the total for Alaska. The decline in the ex-vessel value of the salmon catch in the last several years is the result of low prices paid to salmon fishers due largely to competition from farmed salmon. Walleye (Alaska) pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) has been the dominant species in the commercial groundfish catch off Alaska. The 2003 pollock catch of 1.54 million t accounted for 71% of the total groundfish catch of 2.2 million t (Figure 2). The pollock catch was up approximately 0.5% from 2002. The next major species, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), accounted for 261,600 t or 12.1% of the total 2003 groundfish catch. Pollock, Pacific cod, and flatfish comprised almost 93% of the total 2003 catch. Other important species are sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), rockfish (Sebastes and Sebastolobus spp.), and Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius).
The following fisheries have been closed since 1998 and were prosecuted with gear similar to the Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery, although with smaller vessels: Pribilof Islands Red and Blue King Crab Fishery, St. Matthew Blue King Crab Fishery, Aleutian Islands Red King Crab Fishery. The Aleutian Islands Tanner Crab Fishery has been closed in the western district since 1991, in the eastern district since 1994 and was prosecuted with gear similar to the Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery. The Bering Sea Tanner Crab Fishery, which has been closed since
Figure 2. Groundfish catch in the commercial fisheries off Alaska by species, 1984-2003 34
Pollock
Pacific cod
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Sablefish
{12}
Flatfish
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Other
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Table 1. Gear Use in Eastern Bering, by Fishery 35 Depth – Speed –Duration
Seafloor Contact
Less than 40 hauls/km2; high concentration (<200 hauls/25 km2) S of St. George Island and NE of Unimak Island
210-1500 ft 3.5-4.5 knots 20 minutes - 10 hours
Due to weight in the net and the footropes (extending 590-1475 ft)
30 catchers (140 ft) 10 catcherprocessors (220-350 ft)
43 hauls/25 km2; some concentration N of Kanaga and Umnak Islands
200-1500 ft 3.5-4.5 knots 3 hours
Avoided because of rougher seafloor and possible net tearing
Bottom trawls horizontal front opening: 49 ft headrope footrope vertical distance: 6-30 ft codend diamond-shaped mesh: 5.5-8 in. footrope extension: 100-200 ft, covered with 8-18 in. bobbins or rubber discs otter boards: 4-10 m2, 328 ft apart
84 catcher vessels (60-180 ft) 27 catcherprocessors (107-295 ft)
BS: 102 hauls/25 km2 (concentrations to 477 hauls/25 km2 N of Unimak Island) AI: 21-58 hauls/25 km2 (concentrations from 58 hauls/25 km2 N of Amlia Island and S of Adak Island)
120-540 ft 3-4 knots 2-4 hours
Doors, bobbins, and wire sweeps
BS Rock Sole Trawl Fishery
Otter trawls vertical opening: 6-18 ft intermediate and codend diamond mesh: 5.5-8 in. bridles and sweeps: 98-656 ft (length) rubber disks rigging steel sweeps: 4-8 in. diameter doors: 5-11 m2, 328-656 ft apart disks covering footrope: 12-18 in. diameter, 18-48 in. intervals
20 catcherprocessors (107-295 ft)
Less than 28 hauls/25 km2; intensities greater than 93 hauls/25 km2 N of Unimak and Amak Islands
3-4 knots 1-4 hours
Doors, sweeps, and bobbins
BS Yellowfin Sole Trawl Fishery
Otter trawls, similar to BS Rock Sole Trawl Fishery
20-30 catcherprocessors (107-371 ft)
Less than 33 hauls/25 km2; concentrations from 128 hauls/25 km2 E of the Pribilof Islands and W of Cape Constantine
100-300 ft; <150 ft 3-4 knots 1-4 hours
Doors, sweeps, and bobbins
BS Flathead Sole/Other Flatfish Trawl Fishery
Otter trawls, similar to BS Rock Sole Trawl Fishery
20-30 catcherprocessors (107-295 ft)
Less than 9 hauls/25 km2; concentrations from 128 hauls/25 km2 E of the Pribilof Islands, N of Unimak Pass
3-4 knots 1-4 hours
Doors, sweeps, and bobbins
BS and AI Pacific Ocean Perch and Northern Rockfish Trawl Fishery
Otter trawls headrope-footrope vertical distance: 24-36 ft diamond-shaped mesh: 8 in. (wings and front), 5.5 in. (intermediate and codend) doors: 6.5-12 m2, 148-164 ft apart
20-30 catcherprocessors (107-341 ft)
BS: fewer than 8 hauls/25 km2 (concentrations from 21 hauls/25 km2 near Zhemchug canyon) AI: fewer than 16 hauls/25 km2 (concentrations from 122 hauls/25 km2 S of Seguam Pass)
574-1640 ft 3-4 knots 1-4 hours
Doors, bobbins, and bridles
AI Atka Mackerel Trawl Fishery
Otter trawls, similar to BS and AI Perch and Northern Rockfish Trawl Fishery
8-12 catcherprocessors (107295 ft)
Fewer than 60 hauls/ 25 km2; concentrations greater than 231 hauls/25 km2 on Petrel Bank
410-656 ft
Doors, bridles, and bobbins
“New Bedford” style dredges Width: max. 15 ft. frame: 1900 lb on two shoes (4x9 in.) and 500 lb bag
9 vessels (60-124 ft)
200-460 ft
Steel dredge shoe and steel rings (4 in. diameter)
Gear type
Fleet Size
Frequency
Bering Sea (BS) Pollock Trawl Fishery
Pelagic otter trawls front meshes: 105-210 ft codend meshes: 4 in. headrope to footrope: 60-180 ft steel otter boards: 5-14 m2, 328-590 ft apart
112 catcher vessels (70-90 ft) 16 catcherprocessors (220350 ft)
Aleutian Islands (AI) and Bogoslof Pollock Trawl Fishery
Pelagic trawls, similar to BS Pollock Trawl Fishery
BS and AI Pacific Cod Trawl Fishery
Fishery Trawls
Dredges BS Scallop Fishery
* Rubber chafing gear was used to lessen seafloor impact by protecting the links connecting the rings, but this gear is no longer in use.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{13}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Longlines BS and AI Pacific Cod Longline Fishery
Catcher vessels groundlines: 3/8 in. sinking line gangions: 16-18 in., #72 twine 12/0 circle hooks 50 lb two-prong standard anchors average set: 12 skates of baited groundline Catcher-processors groundline: 9mm gangions: 10-14 in., 3.5 ft apart No. 6 to 14 modified â&#x20AC;&#x153;Jâ&#x20AC;? or full circle hooks and swivel gear Autobaiting equipment: 12,320 hooks
5-10 catcher vessels (less than 75 ft) 35 catcherprocessors (90-200 ft)
Fewer than 19 sets/25 km2; concentrations to 58 sets/25 km2 N of Unalaska and Akun Islands, W of Attu Island, N and S of Amlia Islands, and S of Amchitka and Kiska Islands
150-250 ft (summer), 300-500 ft (winter) 2-24 hours (catchers) 4-20 hours (catcher-processors)
Anchors, groundline, gangions, and hooks
BS and AI Sablefish/ Greenland Halibut Longline Fishery
Catcher vessels 3/8 in. sinking line, 12 ft gangions #72 and #86 twine), 13/0 and 14/0 circle hooks, 50 lb two-pronged anchors average set: 600-900 ft skates of bated groundline Catcher-processors, similar to Pacific Cod Fishery
Catcher vessels (less than 75 ft) 34 catcherprocessors (90-200 ft)
11 sets/25 km2; concentrations from 58 sets/25km2 Halibut: 4-5 mile sets Sablefish: 3-4 mile sets
Halibut: 21002400 ft Sablefish: 18002400 ft 5-24 hrs
Anchors, groundline, gangions, and hooks
BS and AI Halibut Fisheries
Stationary longlines with baited hooks sinking line: 3/8 in. gangions: 12 ft long, #72, 86 twine, 3040 ft intervals 13/0 and 14/0 circle hooks 50 lb two-prong standard anchors Average set: 10-20 skates, 600-900 ft
Small (less than 60 ft) and medium (60-90 ft) vessels
82-902 ft 6-24 hours
BS Pacific Cod Jig Fishery
Jig (8 lb) mainline: 400-lb monofilament 10/0 J-hooks
Vessels <60 ft with 2-4 jig machines each
150-250 ft (summer), 300-800 ft (winter)
Pots
King and tanner crab pots (6X8X3 ft) Dungeness crab pots (rounded, 3.5-5 ft)
BS and AI Pacific Cod Pot Fishery
Square pots (6,000) on single lines steel bar frame: 1.25 in. diameter, covered with 3.5 in. tarred nylon two tunnels with eyes <9 in. line: 5/8 in. sinking line (top), 3/4 in. (bottom) bridle: 6-8 ft, 1 in. diameter poly line
45 catcher vessels (60-125 ft) 5 catcherprocessors (>125 ft)
Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery
Square pots steel bar frame: 1.25 in. diameter, covered with 3.5 in. tarred nylon biodegradable panels: >18 in. escape rings or 10 in. stretched mesh two tunnel openings: 9x36 in. line: sinking (top), 3/4 in. floating polypropylene (bottom)
213 catcher vessels and 5 catcher-processors (60-180 ft)
120-480 ft
Weight bars (low relief, sandy and silty seafloor)
Norton Sound Red King Crab Fishery
Square pots, similar to Bristol Bay Conical pots, 4-6 ft base diameter
Vessels less than 32 ft
<150 ft
(Sandy and silty bottoms)
AI Golden King Crab Fishery
Pots 500-1800 lb each average longline: 20-80 pots, 480-600 ft floating polypropylene line
17 vessels (<125 ft) one 130-ft catcher-processor
710 pots/vessel 2-5 miles
600-2400 ft
(Uneven seafloor in compacted sand-cobble sediments)
BS Snow Crab Fishery
Pots, similar to Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery tunnel: max. height 4 in. required escape ring: 4 in. diameter
229 vessels
170,064 pot lifts in 2000
240-660 ft 7 days
(Silt and mud seafloor in cold water)
Jigs
Set on lines in groups of up to 100
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{14}
Fewer than 24 hauls/25 km2; concentrations from 105 hauls/25 km2 E of Unimak Island
165-985 ft 24 hours
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
1996, was prosecuted with gear similar to the Aleutian Islands Tanner Crab Fishery.
or brown) netting of 50-80 mm mesh, which is attached along the perimeter of ends of the cone. The stanchions and the cone end edges are thoroughly wrapped with kapron filament or other materials. Without this wrapping, use of crab pots is forbidden by Russian fishing regulations. A portion of the codline is organic, allowing it to decay and the trap to open in the case of underwater loss of the trap. Fresh and frozen pollock, herring, cod, and others are used as bait.
Western Bering The following species have total allowable catches and quotas: cod, halibut, pollock, Pacific mackerel, perch, Atka mackerel, flounder, Far Eastern cod; gobies, skates and sharks, squid, grenadiers, salmon, shrimp, and crab. Capelin, eelpout and other species falling into the “other” category have neither TACs nor quotas. ◗
Of these 15 fisheries, nine species are prosecuted using trawls (multi-depth and bottom) and Danish seines: pollock, cod, Far Eastern cod, flounder, Atka mackerel, herring, bottom feeders, shrimp, and squid. Three fisheries use longlines: cod, halibut, and grenadier. One fishery uses purse seines (herring), one uses set nets (salmon), and one uses traps/pots (crabs).
(5) Crab fishery (opilio, berdi, blue, etc.) in the Karaginsky zone using the same gear, at depths from 35-120 meters.
The structure and administration of fisheries in the Western Bering is not as developed as in the Eastern Bering, but at least ten commercial regions can be described with some detail.
◗
17 vessels (40-60 meters in length) specialized or customized for the crab fishery. Pot lines are used for opilio, berdi and Kamchatka crab in the PetropavlovskKomandorsky zone at depths of 35-85 meters.
◗
8 vessels, 45-60 meters in length.
(1) Pollock fishery stretching along the Baker-Shevardnadze line, approximately 150 miles long and 5 miles wide. ◗
These pots are strung into strings of approximately 200 each, connected to the mainline about every 20 meters. Depending on the vessel type, vessels can be equipped with 5-10 such pot lines and are capable of servicing 1000-2000 pots.
33 commercial vessels, ranging from 41-60 meters in length and roughly 40 fisher-processor vessels 80-130 meters long used exclusively for pelagic trawls.
(6) Shrimp fishery (northern, humpy, etc.)—using bottom shrimp trawls with soft footropes, “windows,” and size-selecting grills at the entrance to the codend at depths from 200-400 meters.
(2) Pollock fishery to the east from 174º East between isobaths of 100-300 meters.
◗
Earlier regional Russian fleets worked periodically in this region while approaching the zone along the BakerShevardnadze line. This fishery was never registered or monitored.
4-6 specialized vessels approximately 50 meters in length. 2-3 vessels (105 meters) are used to catch shrimp on intermittent runs.
◗
These bottom trawls have conical nets with a maximum mesh pitch at the mouth and square not exceeding 100-200 mm. As a rule, shrimp trawls for northern, humpback, and other shrimp are made by a variety of companies (Green Net, and others), and are equipped with special “windows” and calibrated selective gratings to prevent illegal bycatch of fish and other prohibited species.
◗
(3) Cod fishery with pollock, flounder, goby and other species bycatch—to the north, east, southeast and south of the Cape of Navarin, depth of 50-70 meters. ◗
17-20 commercial vessels up to 40 meters in length, equipped with commercial Danish seines.
(7) Bottom-species (flounders, Atka mackerel, etc.) in the Karaginsky and Petropavlosko-Komandorsky zone using bottom trawls and Danish seines.
(4) Crab fishery (opilio, berdi, blue crab) using pot lines—western Bering Sea zone at depths from 40-120 meters in the region to the south and southeast of the Cape of Navarin. ◗
12 vessels (40-60 meters in length) with pots specialized for the crab fishery.
◗
These Russian-manufactured pots have a metal mesh exterior (wire diameter ranges from 8-9 mm to 12-16 mm) in the shape of a truncated cone with a lower diameter of 1250-1350 mm and an upper diameter of 650-770 mm. Two ends of the cone are connected to the frame with stanchions. The entire pot is tightly wrapped in colored (green
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
◗
17 vessels, 40-60 meters in length.
◗
Bottom-feeding fisheries (including shrimp) exclusively use bottom trawls and Danish seines. In Danish seines, the maximum mesh pitch in the wings ranges from 70-90 mm, with a minimum size of 30 mm.
(8) Cod and halibut fishery region near the Cape of Navarin, on the continental slope to the south/southwest of the Cape of Navarin, and on the slope in the Karaginsky and Petropavlosko-Komandorsky zone.
{15}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
◗
Approximately 23 vessels, 40-50 meters in length.
◗
Approximately 150 nets.
◗
Midsize trawling vessels, freezer trawlers, and specialized longline vessels are the primary boats used in longline fisheries. Depending on the habitat of the target species, bottom or near-bottom set lines are used.36 More rarely, Danish seines are also used in this fishery. Bottom lines are characterized by the short distance between hooks, which varies based on fish density and ranges from 0.5-0.8 meters. The length of gangions is 0.5-3.0 meters. Working depths for longlines can vary from a few dozen to 1200 meters. The working portion of the longline is comprised of several cassette sections, interconnected by double weaver’s knots,
◗
This fishery is prosecuted exclusively using set nets (sometimes also known as coast nets), set out during salmon migrations and collected at the end of the migration using specialized worker brigades in zones allocated to them. The Russian Far East has three types of nets:
◗
Coastal nets, which each have a wing to direct fish and a trap covering the entire width of the water surface from top to bottom;
◗
Semi-floating trap nets, where the wing covers the entire width of the water, and the trap does not touch the seafloor; and
◗
Floating stake net, where both the wing and the trap do not touch the seafloor.
◗
In bottom longlining (cod, etc.), each cassette section consists of ten 174-meter subsections. Such longlines are approximately 5.2 km in length. Each longline section has 145 hooks, size 18 or 20. The total number of hooks per longline is 4,350. The mainline is made of 7-mm lavsan or 7.4-8.1 mm polyethylene. Frequently, mainlines are made using aqualine-type filament with an approximate diameter of 10 mm. Hooks are attached to the mainline with the help of 0.4 mm gangions at 1.2 meter intervals and the gangions are made from 3-4 mm wide woven fiber. Cassette sections are connected using double weaver’s knots idlers while the final section is connected using buoy lines with eye-splicing. The longline is weighted using two 25 kg fluke anchors. The mainline and hook and line are elevated above the seafloor using floats or synthetic buoys. Anchors and buoys are connected to the hook and line using split rings and the marker buoys are connected to the hook and line with a carabiner.
(11) Coastal salmon fishery using large-scale driftnets
(9) Pacific herring fishery using purse seines and occasionally pelagic trawls in the Karaginsky zone (Olyutorsky Bay). ◗
Approximately 50 vessels, 40-130 meters in length.
◗
Purse seines (nets) are used periodically in the Olyutorsky Bay and the Cape of Navarin by mid-size vessels not capable of traveling faster than 4-5 knots. The length of the net varies from 750-1200 meters. The height of the net wall ranges from 100-120 meters, depending on fishing depths. Net walls are made from synthetic sections, primarily kapron mesh, with mesh diameters of 16-18 mm. Each section is 50 meters long. The Bering Sea purse seine fishery is also dependent on meteorological conditions, the changes in currents from the northeast or southwest (speeds of which can reach 3-5 knots), and the fairly large number of vessels in the fishery itself. The total catch for this fishery frequently does not exceed 1-2% of the TAC.
◗
Up to 12 Russian vessels and 100 Japanese vessels.
◗
Currently, driftnets consist of separate kapron net panels, 10 meters in length and longer, 6-10 meters in height, with 55-65 millimeter holes. Floats are attached to the upper part of the nets, with weights on the bottom. All the net panels are attached to one another in multi-kilometer lengths, which are then left to float in the uppermost part of the water. Nets drift for 8-24 hours. Maximum catch (depending on the region, month, and weather) on one panel is 2,400-3,350 salmon.
◗
Japan uses mid-size driftnet vessels (displacement 130-150 tons), which, in recent years have numbered fewer than 100. The boats are meant to land their catch at Japanese ports. Salmon-fishing vessels use standard driftnets (50x8 meters), where one panel of driftnets equals 4 km in length. The total length of all driftnet panels set out by one vessel in one setting may not exceed 32 km in length, and the distance between nets in any direction must be a minimum of 4 km. Upon setting, each net is marked at either end using marker buoys or radio buoys. During fishing, the number of nets set is determined by the commercial situation: small catches use eight nets (32 km), but large quantities of fish and heavy seas reduce the number. Nets are generally set out at dusk and retrieved at dawn. Nets with mesh holes no smaller than 110 mm diagonally across are permitted. Commercial vessels generally use nets with a mesh size of 124-132 mm, while scientific vessel nets are 110 mms in size.37
(10) Coastal salmon fishery near Karaginsky and PetropavlovskKomandorsky zones using set nets.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{16}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Table 2. Trawls used in the Western Bering Sea in 2004.
Vessel type
Bottom Trawl (BT)
Multidepth rope trawls – MT
Freezer Canner Trawler (RTMKS) Model 88 172/448m 224/449m
224/496m 116/640m 120/1120m
Canning Trawler (RKTS) Model 16080
172/448m 224/449m
224/496m 116/640m 120/1120m
Large Freezer Trawler (BMRT) (Non-Russian manufacture)
172/448m 224/449m
224/496m 116/640m 120/1120m
Freezer Trawler (RTMS) (Non-Russian manufacture)
172/448m 224/449m
224/496m 116/640m 120/1120m
100/650m 100/650m 100/650m 100/650m
Large Autonomous Freezer Trawlers (BATM) 111/786m 116/786m (i.e., Pulkovsky Meridian)
136/840m 154/700m 172/540m
114/640m
Large Freezer Trawler (BRTM) (i.e., Prometey)
111/786m 116/786m
136/840m 154/700m 172/540m
114/640m
Large Freezer Trawler (BRTM) Model 394Ä, 394Äå
103/416m 104/576m
108/528m 118/620m 108/528m
100/650m
Mid-size Freezer Trawler (MRTM) Model ê8830, Model FVS-319
172/326m 120/1120m
Freezer-type Trawler (RTM) (ie., Atlantic)
104/416m 104/576m
118/620m 108/528m 119/450m
100/650m
Trawler-Seiner Freezer (TSM) Model 333
80/396m
Mid-size Trawler (STR) Model 503
80/396m
104/416m 110/520m 122/640m
111/786m 69/48m
Mid-size Freezer Trawler (SRTM-800 STR Model 420, SRTM-K)
62/368m
119/450m 64/322m 64/322m
49,4/32m 45,6m 132m 90m 80m
Danish Seines, Mid-size Trawlers (STR)
length, although one can also find these codends on large vessels as well. c) Bottom trawls are not cited for large vessels, due to the fact that they are banned for use in pollock harvest throughout the region; d) Bottom trawls are permitted for use by the mid-size vessel fleet targeting bottom-feeders.
Note 1. According to the Russian naming system, the first number indicates the length of the upper headline, while the number after the “/” indicates the perimeter of the mouth of the trawl net, with an average mesh ratio of u1=0.5. For Danish seines, only the length of the upper headline is indicated. Note 2.
In terms of their construction, trawl nets are designed such that 50-60% of the length of their exterior consists of netting with mesh sizes of 60, 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1200 mms. The mesh interval on mid-size vessels is designed not to exceed the length of the fishing deck (6-9 meters). On large vessels, the mesh interval is generally 10-14 meters and higher. In rare instances, trawls with mesh sizes reaching 20-40m can be observed (120/1120 meter trawlers). Mesh shape varies according to the desires of the customer—rhombic and hexagonal (6-
a) All trawlers (RT) have cylindrical selective devices with open “flymesh” (square) 7 meters (mid-size vessels) and 10 meters (large) in length; b) Trawl codends have mesh with an internal size of 100-110 mm, depending on the material from which they are made. Large vessels use dual-layer codends, 42.6, 43, and 42, 40.8, 35, 31, and 30 meters in length. Codends on mid-size vessels range are 35, 31, 30, 24, and 22.5 in
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{17}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
sided or honeycomb).
resuspension and mixing of sediments, removal of sea grass, damage to corals, and damage or removal of epibenthic organisms.41
Foreign vessels and mixed-company vessels operate trawls manufactured by Gloria, Radial Trawl, Wonder Trawl, Bering Sea Pelagic Trawl, and Aleutian Wing Trawl, as well as customdesigned trawls.
Studies in Alaska demonstrate that highly trawled areas in the Bering Sea are significantly different than untrawled areas, with the overall diversity of sedentary taxa reduced in highly trawled areas.42 A survey of various studies both inside and outside Bering Sea waters led the National Marine Fisheries Service to conclude that bottom trawls cause both short term changes in infauna, epifauna, megafauna and substrates and persistent changes in megafauna communities.43 NMFS also noted that dredges, longlines, pots, and pelagic trawls cause damage to habitat, but not at the same intensity as bottom trawls.
Gear Impacts in the Bering Sea The impacts of fishing in the Bering Sea vary by gear type and region. Impacts include indirect effects such as reductions in biomass and ecosystem-wide changes in productivity and direct effects such as inflicted mortality on benthic species, increased food for scavenging species, and habitat loss from gear impacts.38 We will spotlight habitat destruction and bycatch as the main harms from fishing, focusing on bottom trawling and certain forms of pelagic fishing as culprits.
Specific studies in Alaska have shown removal of and damage to living habitat resulting from bottom trawling:
Trawls Numerous studies have been published describing the varying impacts of gear types, with most concentrating on the impacts from bottom trawling. The focus on bottom trawling reflects the international consensus that bottom trawling has the largest impact on seafloor habitat.40 The effects of bottom trawling can be extensive. Direct effects include smoothing of sediments, dragging of rocks and boulders,
â&#x2014;&#x2014;
Freese et al. (1999) found that a single bottom trawl removed and damaged large epifaunal invertebrates and that trawling damaged 70% of vase sponges, 55% of sea whips, greater than 20% of brittle stars, and 13% of finger sponges. A return to the site after a year showed increased mortality of sponges and no signs of repair or regrowth.44
â&#x2014;&#x2014;
Krieger (2000) studied an area where 2000 pounds of red tree coral (Primnoa) had been removed by a bottom trawl and found that after 7 years, 27% of the corals in the trawl
Table 4. Marine Conservation Biology Institute: Expertsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Impact Rating, Survey Severity Rankings, and Policy Implications 39
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{18}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
path were removed, the remaining corals were missing up to 99% of their branches, and the detached corals were missing 50-90% of their polyps.45
to reduce impacts. In addition, anchors, mainlines, hooks (with or without bait), anchor ropes, and gangions all come into contact with the seafloor, potentially resulting in habitat destruction.
Another possible problem cited for trawls is fish coming into contact with gear, which results in injury and death for escaping fish. According to some Russian data, fish mortality due to contact with trawl mesh in the Western Bering is inconsequential and does not exceed 10 percent of the total number of fish that come into contact with the mesh.46 Other research, however, contradicts these findings; for example, according to results of research in the northern basin in 1989, scientists estimated the percentage of posttraumatic fish deaths at 75-80% of the total number of fish.
Set Nets Wing ends of these nets have contact with the seafloor, and if the net is not a floating stake net, then the trap net will also contact the seafloor, resulting in habitat impacts. These nets only become dangers in the event that fishermen lose control of the net or the trap net becomes overfull during fishing. These conditions arise, for example, during stormy weather, and can lead to the destruction or loss of the net.
Danish Seines The most damaging use of Danish seines arises when fishing for cod and other bottom species living in “inconvenient places” (among rocks, on cliff faces, etc.), or when the risk of net loss is the greatest. Loss of net fragments or entire nets presents a threat to both specific habitat and to the environment as a whole. These lost nets can also be a danger to other fishing vessels, putting them at risk of entangling their own nets, trawls, longlines, etc.
Large-scale driftnets One problem associated with large-scale driftnets is the significant loss of fish from trauma by sea birds and marine mammals, as well as from tears in the nets when hauling the panel. Perhaps the biggest problem resulting from driftnet fishing is bycatch. Driftnets do not discriminate by species and studies have found large bycatch of immature fish and underweight fish, which has also led to resource and biomass loss. Due to the selective nature of the fish harvest (the largest, older fish age groups are harvested by driftnet), the entire population structure becomes more juve-
Purse Seines In some ways, purse seines are less of a threat to the environment than Danish seines in that they do not come into contact with the seafloor. Purse seines do, however, threaten habitat when lost, just as Danish seines. Unofficial testimony reports that 2030 purse seines or their fragments are lost every year in the Bering Sea. Needless to say, the data is incomplete, since no official studies have been conducted and the seafloor is not cleaned.
47
nile. Commercially valuable chum and reds are the most subject to pressure by the salmon driftnet industry. Whales, dolphins, sea birds, turtles, sharks, and other marine creatures not targeted by the industry frequently perish in driftnet barriers. The next section will examine region-specific problems of fishing gear use in the Bering Sea.
Eastern Bering
Pots/Traps Modern crab traps are equipped with preventative mechanisms (rapid decaying organic filaments) that open in the case of trap loss, releasing the living creatures within. This gear can be considered relatively low-impact in terms of its impact on the seafloor and surrounding resources.
Bottom Trawling and Habitat Impacts The North Pacific Fishery Management Council must be commended for its recommendation to close 375,000 square miles of the Bering Sea eastern continental shelf to bottom trawling. At the time of writing, this decision has yet to be approved and implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The most conservative decision would be to entirely ban the destructive practice of bottom trawling throughout the Eastern Bering.
Longlines Hook-based gear has many of the same issues as nets, the only difference being that the net mechanically impounds or restrains fish, while a hook penetrates the fish or any other creature, inflicting greater damage, which continues until the creature either tears away (with resulting trauma), dies from shock, is eaten by predators, or is hauled aboard a vessel.
NMFS highlighted the disproportionate damage to habitat from bottom trawling in both the 2003 Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DPSEIS) and the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska (EFHEIS). The DPSEIS, which examined the impacts to habitat, concluded, “Impacts to long-lived slow growing species (i.e., coral) could cause long term damage and possibly irreversible loss of living habitat, especially in the Aleutian Islands.”48
Longlines demonstrate a high level of size selectivity, but offer weak species selectivity, resulting in bycatch of species not included in the definition of the fishery. As with nets, longlines present a significant threat in terms of bycatch, as marine mammals and seabirds are often unable to resist an easy meal. The use of “streamers” and other diversion devices are used
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{19}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
The EFHEIS also noted extensive damage to habitat and estimated the percentage by which habitat features would be reduced from a hypothetical unfished abundance under current fishing practices. The EFHEIS then related the damage to habitat both by habitat category and in terms of species present. Although it is hoped that the predicted habitat loss in the Aleutian Islands will be mitigated by the proposed partial ban on bottom trawling, it is unclear if this will occur as the management bodies chose not to institute corresponding reductions in fishing effort.
or less designed to outcompete other top predators. As far back as in 1981 the U.S. government recognized this competition to be “especially acute with respect to the more than 2 million pinnipeds that inhabit the Bering Sea and Aleutians, particularly the northern sea lion and the northern fur seal.”51 Indeed, the Bering Sea pollock and other groundfish fisheries increased from 12,500 tons in the early 1950s to over 2.2 million tons in the early 1970s. This high level of biomass removal, which continues to the present day, may be reducing the environment’s carrying capacity for marine mammals and seabirds.
The EFHEIS also indicated that if current trends continue, there would be a greater than 75% reduction in habitat features in site-specific areas including a patch of sand habitat north of Unimak Island and Unimak Pass and areas of sand/mud habitat between Bristol Bay and the Pribilof Islands. The EFHEIS also stressed the ultra-slow recovery rates of corals, which are considered vulnerable to long-term effects from fishing.
Coincident with this rise in fisheries’ biomass removal has been the steep decline of the Steller sea lion, now listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Northern fur seal, which is now listed as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As fisheries are currently prosecuted, there has been increasing removal of biomass from both the critical habitat and foraging areas of these keystone predators. Current fisheries management does not adequately assess the ecosystem impacts of the global, local, and temporal removals of prey species important for critical life stages of these predators. Indeed, there is no evidence that the foraging needs of lactating females and juveniles are being met.
Pelagic Trawling and Marine Mammals Modification of marine mammal habitat by large-scale commercial fisheries in the North Pacific is of great concern. Industrial fisheries, such as the Eastern Bering Sea pollock fishery, are more
Table 5. Damage to living and nonliving structures in key Bering Sea habitats promised by current patterns: 49 Habitat
Affected Structure
Predicted Reduction
Aleutian Islands shallow
hard corals
11-20%
Aleutian Islands slope
soft substrate living structure
4-19%
Bering Sea sand/mud habitat
soft substrate living structure
3-19%
Aleutian Islands shallow
hard substrate nonliving structure
5-11%
Aleutian Islands shallow
hard substrate living structure
3-17%
Aleutian Islands deep
hard corals
4-9% 50
Table 6. Current fishing patterns will cause the following habitat destruction:
Affected Species
Reduction of Living Structure to Result from Bottom Trawling
Habitat Affected
Percentage of Species Habitat Affected
Red king crab
35% of living structure
Bering Sea sand/mud
25-30%
Golden king crab
20-25% of hard coral
Aleutian Islands shallow water
24%
Tanner crab
15-20% of living structure
Bering Sea sand/mud
68-71%
Atka mackerel
30-40% of hard coral
Aleutian Islands shallow water
44-50%
Greenland turbot
12-14% of living structure
Bering Sea sand/mud
56-65%
Rock sole
13-15% of living structure
Bering Sea sand/mud
37-41%
Shortraker and Rougheye rockfish
8-13% of hard coral
Aleutian Islands deep shelf
22-36%
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{20}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Bycatch All gear types are associated with the bycatch of non-targeted species. The effects of this bycatch vary in intensity and specifics. The effects of bycatch include destruction of seafloor habitat, reductions in biomass to non-targeted fish species, the killing and injuring of marine mammals and seabirds, and changes in the marine food web. Of great concern in the Bering Sea is the bottom trawl fishery bycatch of long-lived, slow-reproducing species such as rougheye rockfish, the longline fishery bycatch of seabirds, and the pelagic trawl bycatch of salmon.
which reduces the bycatch from “ghost fishing.” In the DPSEIS report, bycatch data is broken down by individual fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands regions; 94% of corals and bryozoans and 98% of sponge were taken in the bottom trawl fisheries.52 Our recommendations for reducing bycatch are to increase data collection through observers on all vessels, restrict indiscriminate fishing gear in biologically sensitive habitats, and provide incentives for transition to cleaner gear types.
In the Bering Sea, jig gear is the most selective, targeting one fish at a time, while bottom trawls are the most destructive, causing high levels of mortality to both the seafloor and non-targeted species. Several bottom trawl fisheries are also extremely wasteful, throwing over half of their catch overboard. There are also lesser, but unobservable impacts from discarded pot, longline, and trawl gear, which continue “ghost fishing” when they are lost.
Western Bottom Trawling and Habitat Impact Trawls that come into contact with the seafloor are the worst offenders when it comes to habitat destruction. Where permitted, Russian trawlers equip the bottom trawl footrope with metal or synthetic balls possessing zero or slight negative flotation. Bottom trawls are designed to bounce along the bottom without the net portion coming into contact with the seafloor, skirting small irregularities and obstacles. This, however, is the ideal and not the reality. As a rule, all bottom trawling results in a great deal of damage and disturbance to the benthos.
Despite these problems, there has been some progress in the last decade in reducing bycatch. Although the sheer volume of the pelagic pollock trawl fishery bycatch is still of great concern in terms of ecosystem effects, the transition from bottom trawling to pelagic trawling reduced the overall amount of bycatch in the late 1990s. Similarly, concerns over the bycatch of endangered short-tailed albatrosses in the longline fisheries led to the introduction of streamers, which curtailed much of the mortality. Finally, pot gear is now required to have biodegradable mesh,
In 1989, the Soviet fisheries management agency unilaterally implemented a near-complete ban on bottom trawling. The ban on bottom trawling is much more restrictive and covers a much larger geographical area than does bottom trawling in the Eastern Bering. Russia also has a much smaller continental 53
Table 7.* Bycatch in Alaska by Species, 1997-2003 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total Groundfish Catch (mt)
1,774,489
1,527,219
1,672,261
1,831,197
1,924,256
1,970,496
Total Groundfish Discards (mt)
149,606
148,946
150,576
118,647
135,952
137,976
Groundfish Discards (pounds)
329,822,000
328,368,000
331,961,000
261,568,000
299,720,000
304,182,000
Percent Groundfish Discarded
8.4%
9.8%
9.0%
6.5%
7.1%
7.0%
Prohibited Species (in addition to groundfish discards above) Halibut Mortality (pounds)
14,087,000
14,414,000
13,558,000
13,673,000
13,688,000
13,051,000
Herring (pounds)
1,797,000
1,989,000
1,137,000
608,000
308,000
2,444,000
Chinook Salmon (numbers)
70,000
43,492
33,825
53,055
50,433
67,867
Other Salmon (numbers)
81,580
53,792
68,532
63,380
81,772
199,291
Red King Crab (numbers)
49,191
94,022
115,682
80,909
133,832
105,509
Other King Crab (numbers)
43,220
61,879
36,914
36,284
62,477
151,438
Bairdi Tanner Crab (numbers)
1,643,587
996,764
1,254,100
1,258,219
1,404,762
1,223,117
Other Tanner Crab (numbers)
4,633,578
1,604,354
3,314,970
2,043,627
1,501,745
787,832
* Table 7 does not include catch and discards from CDQ groundfish fisheries. Halibut, herring, salmon and crab discards are in addition to groundfish discards.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{21}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
shelf, and as a result, a much smaller surface area of seafloor is likely to be impacted by bottom trawling. In the Eastern Bering the continental shelf is enormous, and there is a great deal of seafloor biodiversity and geographical relief.
Bycatch It is important to note that Russia’s Commercial Fishing Regulations define “specialized” fisheries as, “those fisheries that, irregardless of the percentage of fish in relation to other species caught, have the highest total catch in that target area with a specific fishing gear or fishing technique.”56 The implication of this distinction is that only 50% of a given catch is required to be the target species and the rest of the catch must be thrown back.
Despite the risk of arrest and fines, unsanctioned bottom trawling for pollock, illegal since 1980 in the Russian EEZ, happens regularly. Traditionally, Russian fishermen seek to take advantage of long summer nights (white nights) when pollock concentrate in aggregates on the seafloor, out of reach of pelagic trawls. Pelagic trawls can be forced into use for these purposes, by adjusting the size of the trawl opening from 60-80 meters to 1820 meters. Such adjustments lead to frequent trawl damage or even loss of gear. The common Russian practice of rigging pelagic trawls for bottom trawling purposes is in fact more destructive than traditional bottom trawling.
Moreover, the Regulations stipulate neither a required proportion of targeted species versus non-target species, nor bureaucratic and legal measures to make such a determination. Driftnets, commonly used in the Russian Far East by Japanese and Russian vessels are of particular concern in regards to both
Table 8. Average annual bycatch (pounds) of coral and sponge by region and gear type, 1997-2001 54 Bering Sea
Aleutian Islands
Coral
Sponge
Coral
Sponge
Bottom Trawl
87,964
500,008
54,675
261,468
Longline
2,425
2,205
6,614
10,362
Pot
220
661
0
2,205
Total
90,609
502,874
61,289
274,035
Figure 3. Annual estimates of seabirds taken in longline fisheries. 55
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{22}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
bycatch and loss of salmon from torn nets. The bycatch rates for marine mammals and sea birds are particularly high (see Appendix D and Appendix E). Because of these egregious harms, driftnetting is entirely banned in the Eastern Bering.
hensive multi-level coordination between Russian and United States regulations on fishing gear and fisheries, rules regarding onboard observers, and enforcement. Only by taking a longterm view on resources management and international cooperation based on an integrated and unified standard for all resource users, can we ensure sustainable Bering Sea fisheries protected in part by habitat and species conservation.
Conclusions and Recommendations The Bering Sea includes a diversity of habitat types and supports extensive fisheries. Although managers on both the Eastern and Western sides of the Sea have implemented a variety of restrictions, there is little consistency in regulations across the Sea and international management of the Donut Hole is narrowly focused on just a few species. In light of the economic and environmental value of the Bering Sea, it is imperative that the Russian and U.S. governments and regulatory agencies work together to foster sustainable management practices throughout the Sea. The authors of this report offer the following recommendations to ensure the long-term viability of all Bering Sea habitats and fisheries:
Continued Research and International Cooperation There is also a great need for more data on fisheries and fishing gear use in the Bering Sea â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly in the Western Bering. Without more data, it is difficult to make the best possible decisions regarding management of Bering Sea resources, and particularly regarding fishing gear use in the Sea. Coordination between Russian and U.S. scientific communities working in the Bering could be accomplished through a Scientific Advisory Board established by the international agreement and commission. There needs to be increased collaboration between all Bering Sea stakeholders on both sides of the Sea. Industry must reach out to the larger community. Scientists and conservationists must communicate with both industry and local communities, working toward the goal of resource management for the benefit of all community members and of the rich life in the sea.
An International Agreement and Commission to Coordinate Management of Bioresources. The current lack of comprehensive multi-level coordination between Russian and U.S. agencies on fisheries management issues results in confusion and uneven management of one body of water that happens to straddle an international boundary. The authors of this report recommend the creation of a multistakeholder and transparent international agreement and commission to coordinate an ecosystem-based approach to bioresources management â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including fishing gear regulations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in the Bering Sea.
Enforcement, Monitoring, and Observing Well-written regulations on fishing gear and fisheries management are ineffectual without means of effective enforcement. Inconsistency and lack of coordination are the main concerns of the authors in regards to enforcement of fishing and fisheries regulations. We recommend full observer coverage, special mon-
Currently, there is a great deal of disparity and a lack of compre-
Table 9. Bycatch by Fishery Fishery
Bycatch
Pollock
cod, halibut, herring, perch, Atka mackerel, flounder, saffron cod, skates, sharks, bull heads, blackbelly eelpout, squid
Cod
halibut, pollock, flounder, saffron cod, bull heads, skates, sharks, capelin
Herring
cod, halibut
Flounder
cod, halibut, pollock
Atka mackerel
cod, pollock, perch, flounder, bull heads Table 10. Bycatch by Gear Type
Gear Type
Bottom trawls Longlines Purse seines Large-scale driftnets
Bycatch
cod, halibut, pollock, perch, Atka mackerel, flounder, saffron cod, bull heads, skates and sharks halibut, pollock, perch, mackerels, skates and sharks pollock, medusas Whales, dolphins, sea birds, turtles, sharks, other marine mammals
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{23}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
itoring systems aboard all fishing and cargo vessels, as well as public access to observer data. Currently, observer data in the U.S. is treated as commercially valuable and is thus deemed private information. Norms for enforcement should be established by the international agreement/commission.
Ecosystem-based Management Current Bering Sea management structures are largely based upon a single-species model of fish population exploitation. As such, managers look at the impacts of fishing without considering the effects to the food web at large. Recent reports from the United States Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission have highlighted this failure. Ecosystembased management policies should:
Observer Programs are currently one of the top issues in U.S. fisheries management. Dating back to the 1970’s, U.S. observer programs are funded by both government and industry and field over 500 observers in more than 20 fisheries.57 These programs must be improved and expanded. Russian fisheries managers would do well to model U.S. observer programs. The authors recognize that improved enforcement and monitoring in Russia will require additional technical resources, funding, and political support. Fisheries management agencies on both sides of the Bering Sea also must immediately adopt strict conflict of interest clauses in order to protect the Sea from agendas that do not promote sustainable management of fisheries.
◗
Look at all the links among living and nonliving resources;
◗
Focus on multiple activities occurring within specific areas that are defined by ecosystem boundaries, rather than political boundaries;
◗
Deal with scientific uncertainty through the use of the precautionary principle (when the potentially adverse effects of a proposed activity are not fully understood, the activity should not be allowed to proceed);
◗
Set catch levels based upon the needs of all parts of the food web; and
◗
Undertake research to determine the ecosystem effects of fishing and monitor the trends and dynamics in ecosystem functionality.
Gear Restrictions and Conversion Specific harmful fishing gear should be further restricted and converted on both sides of the Bering Sea. In the Eastern Bering, the NPFMC recently took an important first step by recommending the closure of 375,000 square miles or 60 percent of the Bering Sea?s Aleutian Island management sub-area. Efforts are still needed to implement this decision, which should help reduce coral bycatch and protect deep water corals near the Aleutian Islands. The decision applies a needed precautionary approach and provides a step toward the ecosystem-based management needed in the North Pacific to reverse the declines of its marine mammals, seabirds, and other plants and animals. Following this important first step, U.S. management agencies should review whether the closure area should be expanded to other areas in the Eastern Bering and whether effort reductions or a ban on bottom trawling should be implemented.
Marine Protected Areas and Reserves There is a growing recognition that marine protected areas are a promising component of ecosystem-based management that can assist managers in protecting the health of marine ecosystems.59 Conservation organizations and scientists in both Russia and the U.S. have been advocating for more marine protected areas, including fully protected no-take marine reserves, especially in areas of long-lived fish and habitat species that are particularly sensitive to the impacts of fishing. There is currently only one marine protected area in all of Russia. Marine reserves serve many functions, including:
In the Western Bering, driftnetting should be banned and the restriction on bottom trawling strictly enforced. Management agencies should develop and implement economic incentives and mandates to ease the transition. Italy offers an example of successful gear conversion. In 1999, after enacting a ban on possession and use of nets greater than 2.5 km in length, Italy spent more than $300 million to re-equip their driftnet fleet. The Italian government began an extended conservation plan designed to include cooperation with EU inspectors and indicated an interest in signing similar bilateral agreements with other Mediterranean nations. The Italian Coast Guard pledged to activate a marine observation system and to inspect driftnet vessels at dock.58
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{24}
◗
protecting habitat;
◗
conserving plants and animals living in protected habitat;
◗
allowing depleted populations of fished species in reserves to recover;
◗
spillover of species in reserves to surrounding unprotected areas;
◗
providing insurance against environmental and management uncertainty;
◗
providing ecosystem services; and
◗
protecting ecological baseline areas.60
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Although some protections for Bering Sea wildlife and habitat are already in place, a need for implementation of zoning as an important component of an ecosystem-based approach to managing public marine resources is indicated by declines in some marine mammal, bird, and fish species; the discovery of extremely sensitive and diverse old-growth coral and sponge habitat; research into the effects of fishing impacts on habitat; and the need for baseline ecological information. Recent research, legislation, litigation, and administrative processes have resulted in several zoning proposals for protecting Eastern Bering wildlife, habitat, and resources. Proposals have been submitted
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
by fishing industry organizations, agency scientists, conservation organizations, and other interested members of the public. The authors recommend a commitment to marine protected areas be included in an international agreement on Bering Sea Management. In the meantime, proposals for the Eastern Bering that are being considered should be accepted and implemented. The health and biodiversity of the Bering Sea ecosystem are essential to the livelihoods of people in both the U.S. and Russia. The fish of the Bering Sea provide sustenance to people throughout each nation, and the communities that live along
{25}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
the shores of the Sea - in Alaska, Chukotka, Koryakia, and Kamchatka - depend on its bounty. By implementing these recommendations, we have a vital opportunity to reduce the negative impacts of fishing gear in the Bering Sea and to adopt an ecosystembased approach that will allow for sustainable and productive management of the Sea.
Appendix A U.S. Regulations and Management of the Eastern Bering Sea Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan ◗ Catch limits that are strictly enforced through reporting requirements and in-season management by gear types and areas. ◗
Gear allocations by target species.
◗
Prohibited species bycatch limits for salmon, halibut, red king crab, tanner crab, snow crab and herring which, if reached, shut down fisheries.
◗
Prohibitions on forage fish fisheries, area restrictions, and seasonal allocations of catch for prey species in order to protect seabirds and marine mammals.
◗
Seasonal and year-round fishing area restrictions.
◗
Gear restrictions and limitations on gear types allowable.
◗
An observer program, with observers required at vessel owner’s expense (<60 feet=exempt; 60-124 feet=30% coverage; >124 feet=100% coverage).
◗
Effort limitation with a moratorium on entry, license limitation program, Individual Fishing Quota programs, and rationalization among participants.
◗
Community Development Quotas which allocate 10% of pollock quota, 20% of sablefish fixed gear allocation, and 7.5% of most other groundfish species quotas to communities in Western Alaska.
◗
Retention and utilization requirements banning the roe stripping of pollock and requiring full retention of Pacific cod and pollock.
Marine Protected Areas ◗ The Pribilof Island Habitat Conservation Area, a 7000 nm? area closed to all trawling for the protection of blue king crab habitat. ◗
The Red King Crab Savings Area, a 4000 nm? area closed to bottom trawling and dredging.
◗
Walrus Islands Closure Area, a 900 nm? area around Round Island, the Twins, and Cape Pierce closed to all fishing vessels from April 1 through September 30.
◗
Steller’s sea lion closures, a 58,000 nm? area partially, and in some small cases, fully, closed to vessels.
◗
Closures include 3 nm “no entry” zones for all vessels around rookeries, 10 nm and 20 nm “no trawl” zones around rookeries.
◗
Scallop dredge closure areas in crab habitat.
◗
There are also seasonal closure areas for Pacific cod, groundfish (including pollock), Atka mackerel fisheries, in some cases designed to reduce bycatch of crab, salmon, herring, and halibut.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{26}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Appendix B Russian Regulations and Management of the Western Bering Sea Recent changes in Russian fisheries management: 1) Payment mechanism for use of commercial targets of marine bioresources. 61
Law 148-F3 states that organizations and individuals are recognized as paying fees for the right to use marine bioresources. Payers include individual enterprises officially receiving permission to use resources in internal waters, territorial seas, on the Russian continental shelf and in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, as well as the Seas of Azov, Caspian, and Barents as well as the region around the Spitsbergen Archipelago. Fee levels are also set (Tables 1-2) and a list of those species subjecting to licensing requirements in accordance with Russian Federation laws. Moreover, the given Federal Law determines the mechanism for calculation and payment of fees for marine biological resources. The resource use fee is paid in the form of one-time and continuing payments. One-time fees are calculated as 10% of the total calculated fee. The initial payment is due upon receipt of the license to use resources, while the remaining amount (the different between the initial payment and the total amount) is paid in equal monthly installments over the duration of the length of the license. For city- and village-based fishing organizations included in the list approved by the Russian Federation, the fee is calculated at a rate of 15%. 2) Mechanism for allocating and affixing quotas for a 5-year period. According to Decree #704 (20 November 2003) “On fishing quotas for water bioresources,” a new mechanism was created for determining fishing quotas as a whole, commercial fishing quota levels on the continental shelf and EEZ of the Russian Federation (with the exception of the Baltic and Black Seas), as well as shares of the total shares set by the Russian Federation in the EEZs of other countries and in regions under the management of international fishing agreements to which the Russian Federation is a signatory. According to this mechanism, upon application each enterprise that meets a series of requirements is allocated a share of the total commercial catch quotas for water bioresources based on that enterprise’s quota allocated over the previous 3 years in defined zones and regions. Moreover, on the basis of meetings of the interagency commission on the determination of quotas, the Russian State Committee on Fisheries enters into 5-year quota allocation agreements with applicants. These agreements must include conditions under which the agreement is abrogated. In addition, a mechanism was created for quota allocation for resource users in the coastal zone. Coastal fisheries allocations are 62
determined on a competition basis for 5-year periods by executive agencies of subjects of the Russian Federation in accordance with general decrees on the order and conditions of quota allocations in subjects of the RF whose territories are associated with the coast. The subjects determine allocations for each applicant for coastal fishing, including a requirement that the applicant’s product be delivered to Russian territory. On an annual basis, the Russian State Fisheries Committee determines the estimated shares to all Russian subjects with territories on the coast. The indicated estimated share by subject is determined as a sum of the total shares of shareholders registered on the territory of that subject. A number of federal entities63 were assigned the task of developing and ratifying the priorities and conditions for auctioning quotas in the total volume for existing catch of water bioresources, reauthorized for commercial fishing purposes as well as the catch of water bioresources for regions newly under development. Finally, the process was created for determining quotas among applicants wishing to catch water bioresources in the EEZ of foreign countries and in water bodies managed by international fishing agreements to which Russia is a signatory (in places where it is not possible to use the quota allocation method). This final process takes into account priority rights to quotas earlier exploited by enterprises in the indicated zones and regions (in cases where nothing is indicated by the given agreements). 3) Liquidation of the Russian State Fisheries Committee and Creation of the Federal Fisheries Agency. According to Article 12 of the President’s Decree #314 (09 March 2004) “On the system and structure of Federal Organs of Executive Power” the Russian State Fisheries Committee is being replaced by the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA), which will assume the functions of government service in the sphere of fisheries activity, management of government property in lower organizations and agencies as well as law enforcement actions in the area of rational use, science, conservation and production of water bioresources and those resources’ habitats. The FFA is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. The primary functions of the FFA are:
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{27}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
a) In the area of fisheries management, provision of government services of significant social value, based on existing federal legislation b) Organization of the following activities: ◗
Complex study of water bioresources with the goal of assessing the condition stocks and the determination of Total Allowable Catches for water bioresources;
◗
Conducting scientific and design studies in areas related to the encouragement of fisheries complex activities;
◗
Development of recommendations on the growth levels of fish and other organisms in water bodies;
◗
Construction of fishing vessels for federal government purposes and the encouragement of production activities in marine fish ports under the jurisdiction of the Agency;
◗
Artificial production and acclimatization of water bioresources;
◗
Organization of auctions for the sale of quotas in the total volume of catch for water bioresources reauthorized for commercial fishing, as well as the catch of water bioresources for regions newly under development;
c) Creation of a state land register, a unified register of bioresource waters, and a list of fisheries regions for coastal fishing; d) Implementation of state assessment and monitoring of the condition of water bioresources; e) Introduction of proposals for total allowable catch levels and fishing quotas for water bioresources according to their use; f ) Submissions proposals for TAC levels for water bioresources for evaluation by state environmental assessment (ekspertiza); g) Realization of a mechanism for the rotation of shares in total volume of catch for water bioresources for commercial purposes of Russian users. Management Plan for 2004 Classification of quotas for the catch of water bioresources: ◗
Quotas for foreign states;
◗
Quotas for scientific, study, and cultural-awareness-raising purposes;
◗
Quotas for production and acclimatization of water bioresources;
◗
Quotas for the catch of water bioresources on the continental shelf, in the Russian EEZ;
◗
Quotas in the EEZ of foreign states and regions where international agreements are in effect;
◗
Quotas for commercial coastal fishing;
◗
Quotas for the provision of individual needs of indigenous peoples and ethnic communities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation;
◗
Quotas for the organization of amateur and sport fishing;
Specific Fishing Regulation Includes: ◗ Only those vessels belonging to the government and other types of property owners possessing an allocated share of the total determined by the Federal Fishing Agency are authorized to fish. ◗
Requirements to receive authorization to fish: the presence of an active commercial fishing fleet, fishing operations for at least 5 years, lack of fisheries code limitation or debts due to tax agencies.
◗
There are 3 agencies responsible for monitoring fishing quotas: commercial councils, onboard inspectors, and shipboard statistical reporting (SSR) transmitted to statistics agencies and the Federal Border Service, according to monitoring regulations.
◗
Bycatch calculations for all species is calculated against total quotas for each species and shall not exceed 8% of the total catch on the vessel, and no more than 20% of immature pollock.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{28}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
◗
Fisheries are closed based on the selection of fishing quotas for a variety of resources.
◗
Restrictions on fisheries; seasons are determined according to the Fishing Regulations of each regional fishery including specification of coordinates.
◗
Bottom trawling using thrust trawls for pollock have been forbidden since 1980.
◗
Bycatch by region and by gear are also limited. For the Bering Sea this can be illustrated in Table 1.
◗
Problematic vessels (and on all foreign vessels) must host a representative of the Federal Border Service and undergo multiple inspections. As a rule, these inspectors lack the training or relevant education necessary for this work. In contrast to inspectors for other countries (USA, etc.), Russian inspectors do not use whole and partial sampling to conduct resource monitoring. Their presence on board is paid for by the resource user, with amounts ranging from $100-$350. In some cases this pay is increased, which serves as fertile soil for drunkenness, corruption and bribery in exchange for favors.
◗
The character of fishing protection operations is fairly primitive and results in limitations to fishing and financial checks. In order to respect these restrictions, ships must enter and leave fishing areas through control points, monitored by patrol ships.
◗
There are strict requirements demanding the presence of satellite monitoring systems for fishing vessels. Whenever the signal is absent, observers and enforcement agencies stop commercial fishing until the reason for the lacking signal is traced. This happens frequently in the upper latitudes of the Bering Sea 62-63Ó due to weak or unstable satellite signal and the limited number of satellites in the area (7) and the very small angle of signal which, due to background and atmospheric interference, is not receivable by antennae.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{29}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Appendix C Fishing Gear Used in the Bering Sea Unless otherwise indicated, all drawings are used by permission from Tim Richards, graphic artist, TetraTech CW Inc.
Bottom Trawl
Pelagic Trawl
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{30}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Vertical Longline
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{31}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Scallop Dredge, New Bedford Style 64
Vertical Longline Salmon Troll
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
Jig Machine
{32}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Crab Pot 65
Drift Gillnet
Purse Seine 66
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{33}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Appendix D Salmon Losses in Driftnet Fishing Midsize Processor-Trawler Vessel in the region of the Petropavlovsk-Komandorsky zone (1995)
Date (DD.MM.YY)
Average catch/4- Lost through tears km panel, each in one panel, each
Injured by sea creatures, birds, each
Actual Catch/ panel, each
Salmon losses/ panel, %
01.06.95 03.06.95 04.06.95
728 954 1178
8 6 12
10 N/A 18
746 960 1208
2.5 0.6 2.5
05.06.95 06.06.95 07.06.95 09.06.95 13.06.95 14.06.95 16.06.95 17.06.95 20.06.95 22.06.95 23.06.95 26.06.95 27.06.95 05.07.95 07.07.95 10.07.95 13.07.95
1012 1288 1170 2180 1567 1333 803 1285 1046 932 975 1477 1950 896 1510 2400 3213
10 N/A 7 N/A 11 12 6 15 8 8 5 N/A N/A N/A 24 12 25
N/A 12 N/A 50 N/A 50 68 5 23 5 15 200 150 179 23 83 100
1022 1300 1177 2230 1578 1395 877 1305 1077 945 995 1677 2100 1075 1561 2495 3338
1.0 1.0 0.6 2.3 0.7 4.7 9.2 1.6 3.0 1.4 2.0 13.5 7.7 20.0 3.1 4.0 4.0
14.07.95
2255
13
N/A
2268
0.6
16.07.95 17.07.95 18.07.95 21.07.95
998 728 1036 927
18 15 9 8
N/A 13 11 6
1016 754 1056 941
1.8 3.9 1.9 1.5
22.07.95
965
6
16
987
2.3
23.07.95
528
13
11
552
4.5
24.07.95 25.07.95 30.07.95 31.07.95
936 677 806 827
18 12 17 17
11 N/A 53 11
965 689 876 855
3.0 1.8 8.7 3.4
The table illustrates that salmon losses ranged from 0.6% to 20%. It is especially notable that whales, dolphins, sea birds, turtles, sharks, and other marine creatures not targeted by the industry perish in driftnet barriers. SOURCE: Mikhno, 2004
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{34}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Appendix E Bird Bycatch in Salmon Driftnet Industry (Russian Federation)67
Date (DD.MM.YY)
Coordinates
Species
Number
01.06.95
53º 15’ 64º 23
Northern fulmars69 Glaucous-winged gulls
47
Northern fulmars
250
02.06.95
53º 17’ 164º 16’
Kittiwakes
52
Laysan Albatross
6
Northern fulmars
350
70
04.06.95
05.06.95
53º 25’ 164º 11’
53º 25’ 164º 12’
06.06.95
53º 33’ 163º 50’
07.06.95
53º 31’ 163º 16’
06.07.95
13.07.95
16.07.95
21.07.95
24.07.95
30.07.95
54º 45’ 161º 14’
53º 40’ 161º 23’
53º 30’ 161º 23’
53º 10’ 161º 32’
53º 19’ 160º 38’
51º 26’ 160º 00’
76
Kittiwakes
50
Laysan Albatross
10
Northern fulmars
120
Kittiwakes
50
Laysan Albatross
45
Northern fulmars
50
Laysan Albatross
48
Northern fulmars
206
Glaucous-winged gulls
49
Northern fulmars
500
Skuas
2
Northern fulmars
1000
Kittiwakes
300–400
Tufted puffins71
25
Glaucous-winged gulls
10
Skuas
2
Northern fulmars
500
Horned puffins
2
Tufted puffins
30
Glaucous-winged gulls
150
Skuas
4
Northern fulmars
1500
Slaty-backed gull72
12
Glaucous-winged gulls
10
Skuas
10
Laysan albatross
1
Northern fulmars
800–1000
Kittiwakes
30
Glaucous-winged gulls
500–600
Skuas
10
Shearwaters
150
Northern fulmars
280–300
Kittiwakes
70
Tufted puffins
42
Glaucous-winged gulls
8
Skuas
4
Laysan albatross
1
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{35}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Distance from Kamchatka 68
Salmon
20–100 m
20–100 m
20–100 m
45–70 m
50–100 m
10–150 m
20–100 m
10–100 m
10–100 m
10–100 m
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Works Cited Cimberg, R.L., T. Gerrodette, and K. Muzik, 1981. “Habitat requirements and expected distribution of Alaska coral.” OCSEAP Final Report 54 (1987). The report was prepared for the Alaska Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, DOC, NOAA. Pp. 207-308. In National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004. Enticknap, B. Trawling the North Pacific: Understanding the Effects of Bottom Trawl Fisheries on Alaska’s Living Seafloor. Alaska Marine Conservation Council, April 2002. Freese, L., P.J. Auster, J. Heifetz, and B.L. Wing. Effects of Trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 182, 1999, p. 119-126. Freese, L. “Trawl-induced damage to sponges observed from a research submersible.” Marine Fisheries Review 63:3 (2002), p. 7-13. Heifetz, J. “Coral in Alaska: distribution, abundance, and species associations.” Hydrobiologia, Volume 471 (1-3), October 2002, p. 19 - 28. Heifetz, J. NMFS. Effects of Fishing Gear on Seafloor Habitat Progress Report for FY 2003. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 2003. Hiatt, T., R. Felthoven, C. Seung, and J.Terry, 2003. NMFS. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries off Alaska, 2002. Hiatt, T., R. Felthoven, C. Seung, and J. Terry, 2004. NMFS. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries off Alaska. Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J. & Reynolds, J.D., 2001. Marine Fisheries Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, England. Johnson, T. 2003. “The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands: Region of Wonders.” Alaska Sea Grant College Program. Fairbanks, AK. Krieger, K. NMFS. “Coral (Primnoa) Impacted by Fishing Gear in the Gulf of Alaska” (Unpublished manuscript). Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Aukes Bay Lab, 2001. In Enticknap 2002. Kruse, G.H., J.P. Barnhart, G.E. Rosenkranz, F.C. Funk, and D. Pengilly. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Overview of statemanaged marine fisheries in the Central and Western Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Southeastern Bering Sea, with Reference to Steller’s Sea Lions.” Regional Information Report 5J00-10. NMFS 2004. McConnaughey, R.A., and K.R. Smith, 2000. “Associations between flatfish abundance and surficial sediments in the eastern Bering Sea.” Can. J. Fisher. Aquat. Sci. 57(12): 2,410-2,419. McConnaughey, R., K.L. Mier, and C.B. Dew, 2000. “An examination of chronic trawling on soft-benthos of the eastern Bering Sea.” ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57(5): 1377-1388. Malecha, P., Stone, R., and Jon Heifetz. NMFS. Living Substrate in Alaska: Distribution, Abundance and Species Associations (Draft manuscript). Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Lab, December 2002. Morgan, L. and R. Chuenpagdee. Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. Washington: Island Press, 2003. NPFMC, 2003. North Pacific Fishery Management Council Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska SAFE. Appendix C, Ecosystem Considerations. Pgs 218-228. United States. National Research Council (NRC). The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington: National Academy Press, 1996. NRC. 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. NRC. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. United States. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Draft Programmatic Supplemental Impact Statement. 2003.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{36}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
United States. NMFS. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. 2004. United States. NMFS. Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, September 2003 (Revised Draft). Alaska Marine Conservation Council. Discards in the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries 2003. Juneau: Fisheries Information Services, August 2004. Ohtani, K., and T. Azumaya. 1995. Influence of interannual changes in ocean conditions on the abundance of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the eastern Bering Sea. Pp. 87-95 in North Pacific Workshop on Stock Assessment and Management of Invertebrates, R.J. Beamish ed. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 92. In NRC 1996. Oceana. “Deep Sea Corals: Out of Sight, But No Longer Out of Mind.” Washington, D.C, 2003. PISCO. “The Science of Marine Reserves. The Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans.” 2002. Witherell D. and C. Coon. “Protecting gorgonian corals off Alaska from fishing impacts.” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, 2000.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{37}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Endnotes 1
NRC, 1996.
2
Hiatt et al., 2003.
3
Hiatt et al., 2003.
4
NMFS, 2004.
5
McConnaughey et al., 2000.
6
NMFS, 2004.
7
NRC, 1996.
8
McConnaughey, R.A., and K.R. Smith, 2000.
9
Draft EFHEIS, January 2004.
10
According to Russian interests, under a document signed by Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990, the border between Russian Chukotka and Alaska was not equidistant from Soviet and U.S. coasts, with 50,000 square kilometers of Russian territorial waters and continental shelf ending up under U.S. jurisdiction. The agreement was never ratified – either by the USSR Supreme Soviet or the Russian parliament – due to the perceived infringement on Russia’s national interests. This dispute is not yet resolved.
11
NMFS, 2003.
12
NMFS, 2004.
13
Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), 2002.
14
Heifetz, 2003.
15
Heifetz 2002
16
Cimberg, R.L., T. Gerrodette, and K. Muzik, 1981.
17
Witherell D. and C. Coon, 2000.
18
Malecha, P., Stone, R., and Jon Heifetz. NMFS, 2002.
19
Ibid.
20
NMFS, 2003.
21
Malecha et al., 2002.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Fisheries of the United States, 2003.
26
Hiatt, T., H. Felthoven, C. Seung, and J.Terry. NMFS, 2003.
27
National Environmental Protection Act of 1969. The purposes of the Act were “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.” < http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm>
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{38}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
28
NOAA, Final Programmatic EIS, June 2004.
29
NMFS, 2003.
30
U.S. Coast Guard. <http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/h_fisheries.html>
31
The UN General Assembly found that driftnet fishing not only undermines transboundary, highly migratory, and anadromous fish stocks, but also inflicts irreparable harm to marine ecosystems (Resolutions 44/225 in 1989, 45/297 in 1990, and 46/215 in 1991). The General Assembly’s Resolution 44/225 (25 December 1989) concerns the limitation of pelagic fishing using largescale driftnets extending great distances. Resolution 46/215 (20 December 1991) calls for the banning of driftnetting. Also in 1991, the Wellington Convention (ratified by 12 nations) took effect, banning fishing in the South Pacific Ocean using driftnets greater than 2.5 km in length. The Convention on the Conservation of Anadromous Fish in the Northern Pacific Ocean (Moscow, 1992) was signed in an attempt to further develop the aforementioned UN Resolutions. According to the Convention, a complete ban on driftnetting was enacted beyond the 200-mile EEZs north of the 33rd parallel. The European Union banned the use of driftnets greater than 2.5 km in length in waters adjacent to EU member countries. Australia and Mauritius have made the most progress, banning not just driftnetting in their waters, but also closing their ports to driftnet vessels and the vessels that directly service them. Oman’s laws demand strict punishment of violators using driftnets, including confiscation of said gear, detainment of the ship, prison terms, and fines. Mexico has a program to gradually replace driftnets with longline gear, considered a more selective gear type. Canada, U.S., Italy, Saudi Arabia, Barbados, Namibia, and Cyprus have limited the length of driftnets.
32
Mikhno, Igor. “Analysis of Driftnetting.” (Unpublished, presented at the 2004 International Bering Sea Forum Working Meeting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia.)
33
Through the American Fisheries Act, passed in 1998, a small number of fishing vessels were specifically granted, by name, exclusive rights to fish in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, primarily for pollock.
34
Hiatt et Al, 2004.
35
Kruse G.H., J.P. Barnhart, G.E. Rosenkranz, F.C. Funk, and D. Pengilly, 2000. In NMFS, 2004.
36
Mizyurkin M.A., A.V.Mizyurkina, V.A. Pimnev, L.I. Sorokin, 1997.
37
Mikhno, 2004.
38
NRC, 2002.
39
MCBI, 2003.
40
Morgan, L. and R. Chuenpagdee, 2003.
41
NMFS, 2004.
42
McConnaughey et al., 2000.
43
NMFS, 2004.
44
Freese, L, 2002.
45
Krieger, K. NMFS, 2001. In Enticknap, 2002.
46
Treshev et al, 1985; Schevchenko, 2001.
47
Mikhno, 2004.
48
NMFS, 2003. Revised Draft: < http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/default.htm>
49
EFHEIS, 2003.
50
EFHEIS, 2003.
51
Taken from NOAA’s final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan, 1981.
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{39}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
52
NMFS, 2003.
53
AMCC, August 2004.
54
NMFS, 2003.
55
NPFMC, 2003.
56
Point 6.1, Russian Federation National Fishing Administration “Commercial Fishing Regulations,” 2002 edition.
57
Hogarth, William T. “Observer Programs in the United States.” International Fisheries Observer Conference, Introductory Session.
58
Mikhno, 2004.
59
NRC, 2001.
60
PISCO, 2002.
61
Federal Law dated 11 November 2003, #148-F3 “On the introduction of changes to part of the Second Tax Code of the Russian Federation and several other Laws of the Russian Federation”
62
The term “subject” here refers to Russia’s seven federal districts, headed by plenipotentiaries who were appointed by President Putin.
63
Russian State Fisheries Committee, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and the Ministry of Finance in agreement with the Ministry of Antimonopoly Policy and Enterprise Support.
64
Coonamessett Farm, 2002.
65
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
66
Jennings et. Al, 2001. Permission pending.
67
Mikhno, 2004.
68
Mid-size freezer trawler
69
Fulmarus glacialis
70
Diomedea immutabilis
71
Fratercula _irrhata
72
Larus schistisagus
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{40}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g
Hook, Line, and Trawler: Gear Impacts and International Cooperation in the Bering Sea
Contact Pacific Environment 311 California Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104-2608 USA Phone: 415/399-8850 Fax: 415/399-8860 Email: info@pacificenvironment.org
PA C I F I C E N V I R O N M E N T
{41}
w w w. p a c i f i c e n v i ro n m e n t . o r g