|
Monday, December 10. 2007
Oregon pink shrimp wins MSC certification
This item also appeared in our Wild Catch service.
PORTLAND — Oregon pink shrimp has been formally certified as sustainably harvested.
The Marine Stewardship Council, based in London, declared that Oregon shrimp trawlers met their standards for responsible management and maintaining a sustainable fishery. That allows distributors to put the council's blue label on the product as a signal to consumers the product is ecologically safe.
It is the first shrimp fishery in the world to qualify for the council's blue label, which can be found on 1,000 product lines sold in 35 countries around the world, said Jim Humphreys, U.S. fisheries manager for the council.
Oregon pink shrimp joins Alaskan sablefish, Pacific halibut, Alaskan salmon and Alaskan crab as certified sustainable U.S. fisheries, Humphreys said. Pacific whiting, the primary ingredient of artificial crab, and Dungeness crab are being assessed for certification.
Humphreys said the Oregon pink shrimp fishery had made big strides in reducing bycatch, unwanted fish that are killed and thrown overboard, since adding a special grate to the trawl gear.
As a condition of certification, the council wants the fishery to better define its overall impacts on the ocean ecosystem, he added.
The fleet landed 20 million pounds of Oregon pink shrimp last year, which brought an average of 47 cents a pound. The tiny shrimp are primarily used in salads, and can be bought canned, frozen and fresh.
"This is an important accomplishment for our fishermen who harvest Oregon pink shrimp, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, who manage this fishery," Brad Pettinger, director of the Oregon Trawl Commission, said in a statement.
Ya think?
A study into the Australian fishing industry published in Science magazine proposes a bold plan to boost profits while easing pressure on the fish population.
The plan would see the industry cutting back on its catch but increasing its profits because of better fish stock.
The Commonwealth says it has already begun implementing the recommendations in the targets it sets for Australia's fish yield, but the industry says the plan is unnecessary and unworkable.
Sydney's fish market is the largest in the southern hemisphere. Today mud crabs are hovering around $30 a kilogram, (US $7.95 per pound) tuna $10 a kilogram and prawns for about $26 a kilogram.
The wholesale profit margin for these products is estimated at about 15 percent, but according to an economic study just published, this margin could be higher if less fish were caught.
Economist Quentin Grafton from the Australian National University is one of the authors of the study. He says, in purely economic terms, Australia is overfished. – Australian Broadcasting Corp.
Lost crab fisherman identified
Authorities have identified a commercial fisherman who fell overboard Friday morning off the Oregon coast five miles northwest of the Siuslaw River.
Andrew Jay Jessup Hebert-Hopper, 22, of Tangent, was wearing yellow rain gear but no life vest when he disappeared from the deck of the 75-foot fishing vessel Zora Belle.
The Coast Guard, which received the call at 7:20 a.m., searched a 100-square-mile area for Hebert-Hopper by helicopter and by boat for more than eight hours. The search was suspended indefinitely Friday evening.
The water where Hebert-Hopper went overboard was 50 degrees, the wind was 20 to 25 knots, and waves were 13 feet high. Coast Guard officials said a person would be unlikely to survive more than 4½ hours under those conditions. – The Oregonian
Use ice, sell better fish
The next issue of Pacific Fishing magazine explores what’s new in freezing and refrigeration.
“Fishermen believe they have a magic bullet” to help turn Bristol Bay sockeye salmon into a more profitable fishery. It's called ice.
Bristol Bay is Alaska's most valuable salmon fishery, and nearly all of the catch is sockeye, or reds. However, the fish fetch far less than reds from other Alaska regions, and most of the Bristol Bay salmon ends up in cans.
This year, 62 percent of the 30 million sockeye salmon caught in the bay went into cans, adding to an already oversupplied market. At a disappointing 62 cents a pound, the fishery was worth $106 million to Bay fishermen, down from $108 million in 2006.
"Right now, the only way a seafood company can make money is if they own a can line. Because there are so many bad fish coming out of Bristol Bay, you can't possibly freeze them and make money on those fish," said Mark Buckley, a 30-year Bay fisherman and a board member of the region's newly formed Regional Seafood Development Association.
Why the lower quality fish? Nearly 80 percent of the Bay boats are "dry" – meaning they don't chill their fish.
"It's a no-brainer. You can get up to 10 cents a pound more if you deliver chilled fish. Bristol Bay is way, way behind the rest of the state," Buckley said.
The development association aims to start turning that around next summer. It was formed two years ago when 1,730 driftnet permit holders voted to pay a 1 percent tax on their salmon catches to fund the venture.
It now has nearly $2 million in its coffers, and the first goal is to chill every fish caught by the drift fleet – including the many older, smaller boats that can't accommodate or afford fancy refrigeration systems.
"Our solution in this case is ice. We can facilitate and partner with others to get ice delivered hopefully to the entire fleet," Buckley said.
Ultimately, the better-quality product will attract more buyers who will compete for the fish.
"That is the only way we're going to raise our prices," Buckley said.
The association views its efforts as a partnership between fishermen and processors, and Trident and Leader Creek Seafoods are participating, he said.
"We are a seafood development association, not a price negotiation association," Buckley emphasized. "We're not there to try and force the processors to pay us more money. We are here to partner with industry to raise the value of Bristol Bay salmon.
"The region is undergoing a lot of hardship due to the downturn in salmon prices. If we can raise the prices and value of the catch, we can all help turn that economy around."
The Bristol Bay RSDA five-year strategic plan is posted at . Bristol Bay is only the second of 12 potential Alaska regions that has embraced the RSDA concept, following Prince William Sound/Copper River. -- Bristol Bay Times
Time to pay up for halibut, black cod
Alaska fishermen who hold quota shares of halibut and black cod (sablefish) pay a fee to the federal government each year to cover costs of managing and enforcing those fisheries. The fee, which can range from 1 percent to 3 percent, is based on the dock price paid to fishermen and averaged across the state.
"This year's average price for halibut was $4 a pound and $2 a pound for black cod. That compares to averages of $3.71 a pound and $2.45 a pound from last year," said Troie Zuniga, fee coordinator for NOAA Fisheries Restricted Access Management Division in Juneau.
Based on this year's fee of 1.2 percent, up from 1 percent in 2006, the combined fisheries yielded $2.7 million for coverage costs.
"For halibut, the overall value is $172 million and about $62 million for black cod. That's $21 million lower than the 2006 halibut value and $13 million lower for black cod," Zuniga said.
The fish prices were higher across the board this year, so why the lower values? NOAA Fisheries collects data only through September, so the highest prices paid at the end of the season in mid-November are not included, acting program manager Jessie Gharrett said. The prices are not based on fish ticket data, and the estimates are only applicable to determining the cost recovery fees, she said.
"We collect information only from shoreside processors, and the value is applied to the total fishery harvest. Unfortunately, those processors do not receive all the fish harvested. There are catcher processors, and others sell their catch on the dock. These persons are not required to report to us," Zuniga added.
Bills were mailed last week to 2,381 Alaska longliners, down from 2,500 last year. Deadline to pay is Jan. 31.
Information is a bit sketchier for shareholders of Bering Sea crab. Federal figures show the total fishery value for crab for the 2005-06 seasons was $127 million. Crabbers paid a 3 percent fee to the feds, totaling $3.9 million in fishery coverage costs. – Bristol Bay Times
Tuesday, December 11. 2007
This is one of the best stories you'll read about the Klamath
WASHINGTON – Environmentalists, Indian tribes, fishermen and farmers have been meeting in private for months trying to come up with a deal to turn the battle over Klamath River water into a showcase for cooperation and restoration.
Now, just as the 26 organizations involved in the secret talks are about to vote on whether to endorse the nearly completed pact, new studies raise doubts about whether it will send enough water down the ailing 263-mile-long river to lift its salmon runs from the brink of extinction.
No one disputes that the river is killing fish.
Recent runs have been so poor that Congress sent $60 million earlier this year to help relieve a financial disaster for fishermen, the result of a massive fish kill in 2002.
Troubling signs now are emerging on the river's tributaries, including the Shasta River, where scientists are puzzled about why hundreds of thousands of small fingerlings die before they reach the Pacific Ocean.
Neither is there any dispute over the leading cause.
Four small hydroelectric dams operated by PacifiCorp cut the river system in half, diverting so much water to high desert irrigation in southern Oregon that in dry years there isn't enough for both farmers and fish, let alone to flush out parasites and diseases downstream of the dams.
Parallel talks are under way with the Portland-based utility to remove the dams. The proposed deal focuses on amicably resolving other issues, including how much water farmers get in the upper basin and how much is sent down the river, on the assumption the dams are coming down.
It is an expensive proposal intended to bring peace to the river system for 60 years. Over the first dozen years, it calls for more than $900 million in federal spending – twice what taxpayers are now spending.
"I think we're on the brink of totally redefining how the Klamath River is operated, and making a landscape change in the upper basin that will be good for everybody," said Craig Tucker of the Karuk Tribe in Northern California, a leading advocate of the deal.
But two recent studies prepared for the Northcoast Environmental Center in Arcata, one of the parties to the talks, raise troubling questions about whether the deal is that good for fish.
William Trush, an environmental consultant on the faculty of California State University, Humboldt, and Greg Kamman, a hydrologist for a San Rafael consulting company, were provided assumptions and text of portions of the deal. Both see huge gains in knocking down the dams but are skeptical about what the deal otherwise would do for fish.
Their Nov. 9 reports question whether the deal can produce the additional water storage that it promises. They are critical of specific allocations of water for irrigation and nothing similar for restoring salmon runs. And the timelines are fuzzy.
"I am concerned that the successful implementation of the settlement agreement hinges on a conceptual plan which has no guarantees of being achieved within a specified amount of time," Kamman wrote.
The reports, which follow a National Research Council study last month supporting higher river flows, pose the potential for pushing some participants away from the deal.
"They could cause problems; I don't know," said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association. "But we want the agreement to work for fish."
Greg King of Northcoast declined to talk about the studies his group commissioned, saying he was concerned they had been leaked to The Bee in apparent violation of confidentiality agreements.
But the group's board of directors has been meeting to formulate its position on the settlement, and King called river flows the group's "most crucial issue."
"It's dicey," he said of the agreement. "We would be giving up some of our legal rights."
Commercial fishermen involved in the talks also seemed more cautious because the gains they want are outside the power of the negotiators to produce.
"The intent of the settlement agreement is to assure more water in the river, even during droughts, than has historically occurred," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
Critics of the deal say the studies may make the proposal's funding, already a huge issue, even more problematic. Much of the money would provide power subsidies for irrigators and economic development funds for counties and Indian tribes as well as restoration of the river and basin.
Critics wonder why Congress would agree to spend more than $900 million for this when there are doubts it will recover endangered fish. Some think the salmon runs are being sacrificed for news coverage of the dams someday being torn out.
"What I worry about is the trade-off," said Bob Hunter, a staff attorney for Water Watch of Oregon.
Jim McCarthy, spokesman for Oregon Wild, said he sees a "boondoggle" in the making.
"With no set allocation for fish, it says we are hoping to get the flows they need," he said. "But the flows they are talking about are less than what the scientists say the fish need."
But Tucker, of the Karuk Tribe, said that Water Watch and Oregon Wild – excluded from talks last year after they refused to sign onto the framework for them – are trying to torpedo the deal. – Sacramento Bee
New York Times takes a look at West Coast wave energy
NEWPORT, Ore. — Chris Martinson and his fellow fishermen catch crab and shrimp in the same big swell that one day could generate an important part of the Northwest’s energy supply. Wave farms, harvested with high-tech buoys that are being tested here on the Oregon coast, would strain clean, renewable power from the surging sea.
They might make a mess of navigational charts, too.
“I don’t want it in my fishing grounds,” said Mr. Martinson, 40, who docks his 74-foot boat, Libra, here at Yaquina Bay, about 90 miles southwest of Portland. “I don’t want to be worried about driving around someone else’s million-dollar buoy.”
The coastal Northwest is one of the few parts of the West where water is abundant, but people are still fighting over it. Amid concerns about climate change and the pollution caused by generating electricity with coal and natural gas, Oregon is looking to draw power from the waves that pound its coast with forbidding efficiency.
It might seem a perfect solution in a region that has long been ahead of the national curve on alternative energy. Yet the debate over the potential damage — whether to the environment, the fishing industry or the stunning views of the Pacific — has become intense before the first megawatt has been transmitted to shore.
“Everyone wants that silver bullet,” said Fran Recht of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. “The question is, Is this as benign as everyone wants to say it is?”
The first federal permit to conduct testing for a wave energy farm off the coast of the United States was awarded in February to a company that wants to study the ocean area near Reedsport, Ore., 60 miles south of here. Three more permits have since been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Major technical and financial obstacles remain, and energy generated from waves is not expected to start contributing to the electrical grid in the United States for several years.
Yet like wind energy in its early stages in the 1980s, wave energy is considered promising, perhaps inevitable, with the potential to one day provide 5 percent to 10 percent of the nation’s energy supply, according to some projections.
Oregon, Washington and Northern California, where the Pacific Ocean first meets land in the contiguous United States after gathering momentum for thousands of miles beneath westerly winds, have the potential to generate four times as much energy from waves as states on the East Coast, according to studies by the Electric Power Research Institute.
All of the permits approved have been in Oregon, where transmission lines run close to the coast, making them easier to tap into, and where state government encourages businesses to explore new forms of energy.
With state support, Oregon State University is testing a wave energy buoy it plans to deploy off the coast here next spring.
Finavera Renewables, a Canadian company with an office in Portland, has conducted tests near the Yaquina Head lighthouse here, and has a permit to do more testing near Coos Bay.
Ocean Power Technologies, the company planning the project near Reedsport, has received a preliminary permit to test the potential for a wave farm it says could generate up to 50 megawatts of electricity. A typical coal-burning plant produces about 600 megawatts.
Several kinds of technology are being tested. Some would use buoys that hold turbines turned by waves. One type being tested at Oregon State would create energy from the relative movement between a fixed spar and a buoy that rises and falls with waves.
The Reedsport project could transmit energy to shore through an outflow pipe once used by a now-defunct timber mill. That convergence of old economy and new reflects what supporters of wave energy say is fitting symmetry for a region that has evolved from an extraction-based economy built on logging to one striving to use natural resources in ways that are environmentally sound.
But some environmentalists and fishermen worry that the recent rush for renewable energy is more about politics, big business and the next big thing than it is about clean energy. They warn that too little is known about what effect wave farms might have on migrating fish and whales.
“The tendency with new technology is always to minimize the downside,” said Ms. Recht, of the fisheries commission, which works with conservation agencies and the fishing industry to protect fish populations. “I’m not prepared to take new risks unless we’re conserving and respecting the energy we already have.”
Nancy Fitzpatrick, the administrator of the Oregon Salmon Commission, which is financed by the fishing industry, said: “Is it going to impact us? Going way back to the dams, we find out later that of course, yes, it affected salmon and migration. So we don’t want to be stuck in a situation like that with wave energy.”
For now, wave parks are expected to be built two or three miles offshore and cover as much as several square miles. Supporters say they will barely be visible, if at all.
Philip D. Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a supporter of wave and tidal energy projects, said the government was “not allowing these to go into sensitive areas.” Mr. Moeller added, “We haven’t defined sensitive area, but the point is we’ll be cognizant of that.”
He said the commission was encouraging wave energy companies to seek a new five-year “pilot license” the commission has created specifically for wave and tidal energy projects. The license, which could be gained in six months, would let companies set up a short-term wave farm to test technology and demonstrate success to wary investors. If environmental damage became evident, he said, the equipment could be removed from the ocean fairly quickly, something that is far more complicated with dams.
“Let’s get this stuff in the water and find out what it has to offer,” Mr. Moeller said.
“Consumers want green power, and this is an option.” – New York Times
Feds take next step in Bristol Bay mining
Federal land managers announced Friday they plan to lift mining restrictions on roughly 1 million acres in the Bristol Bay region.
The decision, which can be appealed, is a harsh blow to some Southwest Alaska villages, environmentalists and sporting groups that oppose mining in a watershed containing the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery.
"It's unbelievably disappointing," said Tim Bristol, the Alaska regional director of Trout Unlimited, a national sport fishing advocacy group.
"I don't know where this goes next. Maybe to Congress," he said.
The Bristol Bay region is already boiling with debate over potential development of the massive Pebble copper and gold prospect north of Iliamna Lake. Pebble is on state land not subject to Friday's decision. The controversial prospect lies in the headwaters of two of the five main rivers that feed the bay's world-class salmon and trout fisheries.
Some of the land that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management plans to re-open to mineral entry is in the same river drainages as Pebble, but many miles downstream.
However, BLM officials say the 1 million acres don't appear to contain valuable mineral resources. Also, they claim they do not have a legal basis to continue the ban.
"Its purpose has been served," said Gary Reimers, based in BLM's Anchorage office.
For more than 30 years, millions of acres of federal land in Alaska have been closed to mining or oil and gas leasing due to the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the federal law that created Alaska's Native corporations. The land was put off limits to development while the new Native corporations selected land from federal holdings in their regions. Under the Alaska Statehood Act, which Congress passed in 1958, the state also can select land.
Soon, the state and Native corporations will soon receive the remainder of the land they selected in the Bristol Bay region.
"The lands of the highest mineral potential have been taken," Reimers said.
The BLM's critics do not find that reassuring.
Large blocks of land that agency officials plan to reopen to mineral entry are located on uplands in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, which feed some of Bristol Bay's commercial, subsistence and sport fisheries. Over the years, the Nushagak is the state's largest king salmon producer and the Kvichak is the state's largest sockeye producer.
Previously, a coalition of village Native corporations worried that pollution discharges from mining could harm their salmon runs unsuccessfully asked the BLM and congressional leaders to maintain the ban on mineral entry in the region, said Dillingham resident Bobby Andrew, a coalition spokesman.
The BLM decision isn't final yet: opponents have until Jan. 14 to file a protest letter to the agency's Alaska regional director, Tom Lonnie.
Conservation groups are weighing other legal options, too, said Jeremiah Millen with the Alaska Wilderness League.
Mining officials have said very little exploration has occurred n the region but they don't feel that the BLM should retain the ban.
"It doesn't make any sense to close it off because of some campaign against Pebble," said Steve Borell, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association, in an interview last year.
Some Bristol Bay residents and environmental groups have asked the BLM to postpone its decision until after mid-January. – Anchorage Daily News
Marine protected areas getting bigger
Ocean waters off San Diego County and the rest of Southern California likely will be carved into new marine conservation areas years earlier than expected, state officials have said. The reserves could benefit dwindling species but damage the fishing industry in the region – arguably the state's biggest battleground on the issue.
California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman announced that officials will soon begin reviewing the coast along San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Some observers had expected them to first tackle the northern reaches of California.
Three years ago, state officials chose the central coast as the starting point to expand a hodgepodge of undersea reserves designed to protect numerous species through restrictions on fishing and other forms of harvest. They have completed one section and are working on another.
“This is a monumental effort,” Chrisman said of the Southern California plan. “It truly is a national model, and there will be a lot of good that will come of this.”
His announcement spurred powerful interest groups to prepare for what's likely to be a long struggle over whether to enlarge – perhaps dramatically – coastal reserves along the 300-mile stretch from the U.S.-Mexico border to Point Conception, north of Santa Barbara.
Environmentalists and fishermen, while often united on the need to help preserve California's fisheries, have clashed for years over the size and location of marine protection zones. The fight has encompassed everything from scientific reports to demonstrations where people throw fish, dress as kelp and bring children with fishing poles.
The fracas is expected to intensify as attention focuses on Southern California, home to millions of people with direct or indirect interest in the ocean.
Kate Hanley, who manages marine conservation efforts for the environmental group San Diego Coastkeeper, said she was hopeful that the revision process for coastal reserves will improve the health of the ocean in a way that all sides could appreciate.
“We really are trying to protect the same resource,” Hanley said.
Southern California already has more than 40 marine protection areas that cover some 150 square miles. That includes 10 along the coast of San Diego County.
The patchwork includes marine reserves, marine parks and marine conservation areas. They allow different amounts of fishing and shellfish harvesting.
By far, the largest coastal reserves in Southern California are near the Channel Islands. Research there has shown that such zones help marine life recover, but there isn't enough information to make long-term conclusions, said John Ugoretz, a top official with the state Department of Fish and Game's marine program.
“The trends are looking positive . . . and it's showing at this point there has not been the types of negative (economic) impact that people were concerned about,” he said.
Marine reserves have helped boost the populations of marine animals worldwide, said Ed Parnell, a marine ecologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
“Two generations from now, people will be very happy with (California's reserve system) . . . just as we are glad that there were forward-thinking people in the 19th century who created the national parks system,” he said.
Others are less certain about the prospects.
“The jury is out. Large-scale closed areas may not be necessary, and it's certainly too soon to know if they have any effect,” said Bob Fletcher, president of the Sportfishing Association of California. The group represents more than 200 sport fishing boats from 23 landings statewide.
The Legislature established the basis for a statewide network of coastal reserves in 1999 when it passed the Marine Life Protection Act. The law has been supported by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, which declared that the nation's oceans are in crisis.
Early next year, state officials will commission studies as part of their effort to determine what areas should be off-limits to recreational and commercial fishing in Southern California. Even after they reshape the coastal reserves, they will continue to refine them over the years based on what's working.
“The marine protected areas that have existed historically are really small and placed in locations that didn't have a huge amount of scientific basis to them and are very poorly enforced,” said Greg Helms of the Ocean Conservancy in Santa Barbara.
He welcomed the revision process despite the dissension it stirs.
“When you bring more voices into the ocean management and ocean protection process, it's fundamentally a good thing because the oceans are a commons,” Helms said.
In drawing new boundaries for marine protected areas on the central coast, state officials have tapped numerous interest groups, including those for fishermen, scientists, divers, surfers and tour boat operators.
Dozens of experts contributed to a two-year review that led state leaders to expand reserves in the central coast's southern section by more than 450 percent – to 204 square miles.
As that process played out, some interest groups became more concerned about what could happen in Southern California. If the region's reserves increase as much as they did in the southern central coast, they would cover about 850 square miles.
Paul Lebowitz, kayak fishing editor for Western Outdoor News, said additional restrictions for waters off La Jolla and Dana Point would severely affect the growing ranks of kayak anglers at those sites.
“La Jolla is the sport's epicenter. There's the deep canyon, the kelp beds, the influence of Scripps pier and a good, safe place to launch,” Lebowitz said. “But based on what has happened in this process up north, they like (to protect) deep canyons. . . . It would be devastating to us to lose La Jolla.”
Fishing organizations such as United Anglers of Southern California, the Coastside Fishing Club, the Sportfishing Association of California and the American Sportfishing Association have formed the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans to try to maintain access to various recreational fishing grounds.
“We have put together a good coalition to make sure anglers' voices are heard,” said Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers group. – San Diego Union-Tribune
Wednesday,December 12, 2007
Halibut quota down, prices probably up
Think halibut is pretty expensive now? The price might climb even higher next year, when supply is expected to drop.
The scientific staff of the International Pacific Halibut Commission recommended a catch limit of just over 59 million pounds for next season, a drop of 9 percent from this past season.
Commercial fishermen in some regions will take the brunt of the cuts.
For Southeast Alaska (Area 2C), the recommended catch limit is 6.2 million pounds, a cut of 27 percent.
For British Columbia (Area 2B), the recommendation is for a nearly 30 percent cut to 8 million pounds.
For the top fishing area, Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A), the recommended catch limit is about 24 million pounds, down 7.6 percent.
The commission staff is recommending higher limits in most areas farther west off Alaska.
The six-member commission, which regulates halibut fisheries off the West Coast, British Columbia and Alaska, is scheduled to meet Jan. 15-18 in Portland to make the final decision on catch limits.
The halibut fishery is expected to open in March and run until November. – Pacific Fishing columnist Wesley Loy writing as The Highliner for the Anchorage Daily News
San Francisco fishermen get some money
Lawyers for local crab fishermen have brokered temporary cash settlements from the insurance group that represents the container ship Cosco Busan for damages they suffered from November's big oil spill.
The ship's insurers are offering crab boat owners who can prove they were damaged by the spill interim payments of either $5,000 or $10,000, money that attorney Michael Duncheon described as "a down payment" against future claims.
The interim payments do not affect the fishermen's right to pursue further compensation or additional damages in case the crab fishery has been permanently damaged by the spill.
The fishermen sustained a financial loss when the Cosco Busan spilled fuel oil into the bay and ocean just a week before the Nov. 15 opening of the commercial crab season.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger halted all fishing in a 3-mile-wide zone outside the bay for more than a week, which impacted the opening of the season in the days just before Thanksgiving, when fresh Dungeness crab is a highly prized holiday treat.– San Francisco Chronicle
JUNEAU -- A processor to replace fossil fuels with bio-diesel should be operating by January, a man behind plans to form a biodiesel cooperative said.
"We hope to show there are local solutions for energy problems of national concern," said Anthony Distefano, co-founder of Southeast Alaska Solutions.
The Alaska fish processing industry disposes of an estimated 13 million gallons per year of fish oil that could be converted to biodiesel, according to the Alaska Energy Authority.
The authority is looking for bids on a portable system that would render fish oil from fish waste from various processors.
One Juneau business already is putting biodiesel to use.
The Baranof Hotel invested about $10,000 in a new fuel system about 18 months ago to power its boilers with a blend of biodiesel and regular diesel.
The Baranof's exhaust stack now emits the distinct aroma of French fries, assistant chief engineer Quin McLean said. – Anchorage Daily News
Governor names Juneau man to fish panel
Gov. Sarah Palin has appointed a state Fish and Game official to the Northern Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission.
Brian Frenette of Juneau is the Department of Fish and Game's sport fishing supervisor.
Frenette has published scientific papers on fish management issues involved in Southeast Alaska fisheries.
Frenette will serve as the governor's alternate on the panel, among several regional groups that provide technical and regulatory advice on salmon stocks to the commission. – Juneau Empire
North Pacific council increases yellowfin catch
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council voted on Monday to nearly double the size of the Bering Sea yellowfin sole fishery, setting the catch limit for the species at 225,000 tons for 2008.
The move was intended to offset the shrinking quota for the Bering Sea pollock fishery, for which a total allowable catch (TAC) of 1 million tons was approved by the council on Monday.
But the decision was opposed by an unusual alliance of environmental groups and the so-called "head and gut" fleet, the bottom-trawling boats that fish for sole and other flatfish.
The two groups don't have much common ground, but both argue that the council is risking long-term consequences in order to bail out the pollock fleet in the short term.
"What we're seeing is a fishery running out of one kind of fish, which is pollock, and then just moving on down the line," said Jon Warrenchuck, oceans scientist with the conservation group Oceana.
A handful of catcher-processor boats in the pollock business also fish for yellowfin sole, and were given part of the sole quota by the North Pacific council last year in response to shrinking pollock quotas. Lori Swanson, the executive director of the Groundfish Forum, a head and gut fleet industry organization, said that's fine, to a point.
"[When] pollock goes down and yellowfin goes up, there is a mechanism to allow more yellowfin to go to the pollock boats--we don't dispute that at all," she said. "Our concern is that by setting the TAC so high this year, the increased effort could reduce the amount of yellowfin that's available for the fishery in the future."
Both Swanson and Warrenchuck said that if the yellowfin quota is going to increase, they'd like to see it happen more gradually. In testimony before the council on Monday, Warrenchuck mentioned concerns by Oceana's lawyers that approving a quota jump of this magnitude without an environmental impact statement could violate the National Environmental Policy Act.
Stephanie Madsen, the executive director of the At-Sea Processors Association, a mostly pollock-oriented industry group, downplayed the controversy over the measure, saying that in the long run the pollock and head and gut fleet would be able to fish without stepping on each others' toes.
"It looks like we're all fighting, only because it's uncertain," she said. "I don't think there are going to be long-term issues."
The yellowfin quota was larger than the one recommended to the council by its advisory panel, but below the level that the council's scientific advisors had said was reasonable. The council also approved an increase in the advisory panel's recommended arrowtooth flounder TAC for the Bering Sea, from 50,000 tons to 75,000 tons. – KIAL
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Trident vessel spills diesel off Tacoma
Human error apparently caused a 435-gallon diesel spill from a fishing vessel tied up at the Port of Tacoma, officials said Tuesday.
“We think there may have been a misalignment of valves or inattention to detail,” U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Marty Smith said of the Monday night spill. “We don’t think it was mechanical, but I can’t say that 100 percent. It’s still speculation.”
A state Department of Ecology official said much the same thing about the spill from the Bowfin, a 166-foot Trident Seafoods fish tender moored at the port’s Pier 25 at the mouth of the Hylebos Waterway.
The Coast Guard and the Ecology Department are jointly investigating.
Seattle-based Trident operates a fleet of fishing vessels that work off Alaska. The company leases moorage at Tacoma’s port. Three vessels were tied up at Pier 25 on Monday night.
The Bowfin spill occurred during an attempt to transfer the fuel from one internal tank to another.
“Somehow, the fuel escaped through a vent. It’s under investigation right now so I don’t know why that happened,” said Joe Misenti, a Trident Seafoods vice president.
Misenti said the Bowfin’s chief engineer initiated the fuel transfer, but might not have been on board when the accident took place.
“We’re working on a timeline to determine where he was at that time,” he said.
Trident requires its employees to monitor such fuel transfers, said Bob Nelson, the company’s attorney.
Monday’s was largest of several recent spills involving the Bowfin or other Trident Seafoods vessels, according to state records.
Since 2002, Ecology Department officials have issued Trident nearly $6,000 in fines for six spills, none of which amounted to more than 20 gallons, records show. In addition, Ecology officials are still investigating a 90-gallon spill from the Bowfin in Commencement Bay last July.
Even so, Coast Guard and state officials commended Trident for floating containment booms around its vessels while in port, a voluntary practice that largely confined Monday’s spill to the dock area.
“It helped a great deal,” said Lt. Cmdr. Smith. “They’ve been a really good response partner on this one.”
State regulations require containment booms only during fueling.
“There are no state laws governing the conduct of internal transfers,” said David Byers, Ecology Department spill response manager. | |
