Fisheries

A new recycling initiative aims to curb illegal dumping of fishing nets in Wrangell, and send the old nets to Slovenia to be melted down for re-use.

The Wrangell landfill has a new place for disposing old fishing nets.

“Any commercial fisherman can go to the dump, drop their nets off. They need to be stripped of lead and corkline, and they need to go into this receptacle with the salt bag,” said Trevor Kellar of the Wrangell Cooperative Association

Kellar is with the WCA working as an Environmental Tech Assistant under the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program. Kellar said Trident Seafoods donated large salt bags to contain the nets. Those bags are in a receptacle at the landfill marked for net disposal.

The WCA surveyed residents earlier this summer about their most pressing environmental concerns, and illegal dumping was at the top of the list. The WCA teamed up with the city, the Petersburg Indian Association and Trident Seafoods to do something about fishing nets, which are just part of the larger issue of illegal dumping on Wrangell Island.

Wrangell Harbormaster Greg Meissner said fishing net disposal has been a problem for years.

“Many times they get thrown in our dumpsters, which makes a very large problem for the trucks, because once they get dumped into the garbage truck, it gets tangled up inside the equipment and makes a real mess of it,” Meissner said. “And the Public Works folks who drive the truck, it’s really hard and dangerous for them to get the things cleaned out.”

Meissner said the harbors used to have open-top bins designated for nets, but people put other kinds of waste in there, too.

“It would all go into this receptacle for nets, and then the birds would find the garbage bags and spread it all over the parking lot,” Meissner said. “So we at the harbor just got tired of picking up mess after mess after mess.”

That’s when the landfill started collecting nets instead. The new program will have a different way of collecting and disposing of nets, but Meissner said it still starts with fishermen getting motivated to take their nets to the landfill.

“The fact that they’re going to collect at the landfill is great. It’s a good spot for it, and there’ll be a spot there for fishermen to literally pull up, dispose it right in the location it needs to go. That still requires fishermen to take that step, and take it from their boat and to their truck, and from their truck to the landfill. And not just take the easy route, which is back up to our dumpster with everything else, and throw it all in and make a mess,” Meissner said.

Kellar said that’s why the WCA is trying to incentivize the program.

“We want to make incentives to get this kicked off, get people excited about it, get fishermen to bring us their nets,” Kellar said.

Once nets are brought to the landfill, they’ll be shipped, likely for free, to Petersburg. The Petersburg Indian Association already has a net recycling program, but they haven’t collected enough to meet the minimum poundage required to ship the nets out.

Kellar said with free salt bags and free shipping, the net recycling program will come at no cost.

“And PIA, Petersburg Indian Association, they’ll take our nets for free. So I guess this entire recycling endeavor, it will be completely free,” Kellar said. “It’s everybody in the community helping out, doing their little part.”

Petersburg will ship the nets to Seattle. From there, the nets will be shipped to Slovenia to  be melted down and made into new nylon products.

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that a newly-implemented fisheries observer program in the Gulf of Alaska may have become unreliable, and is sending federal managers back to the drawing board to fix it.

The decision by Judge H. Russel Holland is being hailed as a victory by Southeast Alaska’s longline fleet, who have chafed under the new system, which requires them to carry human observers on their relatively small vessels.

But federal fisheries managers see it as a win as well.

The observer program is not going away. Instead, the court’s action may compel the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — or NOAA — to find a way to remodel it, which is what the small-boat fleet has wanted since the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopted the new plan in 2010.

Joel Hanson is the conservation director for The Boat Company, the non-profit regional cruise company-cum-environmental organization that brought the lawsuit.

“We don’t hesitate to speak our peace with federal agencies when we see them doing something awry.”

In this case, something awry meant redistributing observer coverage on Alaska’s trawlers — who drag huge nets along to ocean floor scooping up pollock — in order to create an observer program for the halibut fleet, generally smaller boats who use a type of gear called longlines, which catch fish on hooks.

Hanson says NOAA — acting under the direction of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council — just got it wrong. The fish observer program is intended to keep track of bycatch, or the number and kinds of fish being caught unintentionally. Restructuring the program was supposed to improve coverage of the fisheries, but Hanson believes its gotten worse.

“So this was an opportunity for us to look at what the outcome of the restructuring program was, where it should be, and how to make it more like what we think the public expected, and what we certainly expected. ”

And Judge H. Russel Holland agreed in part. In his 50-page ruling, Judge Holland says coverage under the new system risks dropping below a reliable threshold.

The government doesn’t necessarily dispute that finding.

“The analysis that the judge has asked us to do is actually very helpful.”

Martin Loefflad directs Fisheries Monitoring for NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. Judge Holland’s decision requires the agency to prepare another environmental analysis, to ensure that enough observers are on enough boats to gather reliable data on bycatch.

“And we’re certainly game to do that, because we too share the concern of the data quality issue.”

Read NOAA’s 2013 Observer Program Annual Report.

Unfortunately for fishermen, better coverage may mean an increase in costs. The fleet pays 1.25 percent of its gross sales to fund the observer program. The Magnuson-Stevens Act caps those fees at 2 percent, but there are still millions of dollars in play.

Loefflad says the decision validates the government’s efforts to expand observer coverage in the 25 years since it began.

“The court’s judgement on us is really quite a success story because it preserved many of the strides that we were able to get through with the restructured observer program, working through the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. So many of those things that didn’t occur in the past are present today.”

Foremost among those new things is coverage of the halibut longline fleet, which did not have to carry observers until last season. An organization calling itself The Fixed Gear Alliance intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of The Boat Company. Linda Behnken is the director of the Alaska Longline Fisherman’s Association — or ALFA — which is member of the Alliance.

“The main improvement we hope to see in the program is an increase in observer coverage on vessels where bycatch is an issue. So salmon bycatch is all in the trawl fishery. Halibut bycatch is primarily in the trawl fishery. To see better coverage.”

The Fixed Gear Alliance also wanted to see electronic monitoring (EM) addressed in NOAA’s new Environmental Analysis, but Judge Holland did not allow that argument to move forward. Still, the use of cameras to count fish instead of humans — especially in cramped quarters on boats under 60 feet in length — has its advocates. Really important advocates. Like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, recently speaking to the Sitka Chamber of Commerce.

“We can be smarter in our technologies to allow for electronic monitoring that is accurate and reliable, and doesn’t get in the way of the operations. It’s been fascinating to me how much foot-dragging we have had from the agencies, Oh you know, we just don’t know, somebody might tamper with this, you can’t do that — Good heavens! Work with us.”

Linda Behnken at ALFA hopes that NOAA does just that when it reopens the environmental analysis — even though the judge didn’t spell it out. ALFA has been working for several years on an electronic monitoring pilot project. NOAA is piloting a program of its own with nine boats this season.

NOAA’s Loefflad says it’s a start.

“I think there is a future for electronic monitoring in Alaska. We’re doing the research right now, and we’ve been partnering to move that research forward.”

Still, electronic monitoring would have to be adopted by the North Pacific Management Fisheries Council — a process that is by no means fast. None of this is particularly fast. The Boat Company’s attorney, Paul Olson, filed this suit in 2012 with Earthjustice. Although the observer program isn’t going away, Olson considers the ruling a win anyway, since the government is going to have to take another hard look.

“Basically what the court said is that your NEPA analysis failed to consider whether you would acquire statistically reliable data at significantly reduced coverage rates, especially for the trawl fleet.”

NEPA stands for National Environmental Policy Act. In this case, a new NEPA analysis means — not necessarily starting from scratch — but a new document, and a new opportunity for the public, the small-boat halibut fleet, and US Senators to comment on the process.

The Yukon River Chinook salmon run is nearly complete according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. It is the first time in roughly eight years that escapement goals lined out in a treaty between Alaska and Canada have been met.

This year, managers up and down the Yukon River set restrictions on both commercial and subsistence harvest of King salmon. They were hoping to see up 55,000 fish to pass into Canada.

Numbers recorded through the first week of August show that more than 60,000 King salmon have passed the sonar counter at Eagle.  Fred Bue is the Yukon Area Inseason Manager for the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

“This is not a good year,” he says, “but with all the efforts by everybody, I think we’re continuing to put fish on the spawning ground and hopefully that holds us over until the production trend changes.”

It’s unclear why the King salmon population has been in decline for years. Bue says biologists do have a theory for this year’s uptick in returning Chinook.

“One indication is that five year old age class is fairly strong and in 2009, we had a fairly good escapement that year,” Bue explains. “So, we are anticipating the six year olds to be fairly good next year.  females tend to be six year old fish, so we’re hoping to get a higher percentage of females in the return next year.”

More females means more fish eggs, which could potentially mean more fish in the future. King salmon are just now arriving at their Canadian spawning grounds. Bue says the Department of Fish and Game is working with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans on how best to manage them.

“Roughly half the Chinook salmon spawn in Canada,” says Bue, “so a lot of the information we get we need to share with both harvest on both sides of the border and the escapement and what gets into the spawning grounds that’s the biology of the fish that we’re seeing in the returns.  Alaska is only a portion of the story and Canada is the other half so we need to combine our information.”

Canadian managers have also imposed commercial and subsistence harvest restrictions on King salmon. With more than 95% of this year’s kind salmon having already passed through Alaska, restrictions in Alaska’s portion of the Upper Yukon have been lifted.

Some Alaska tribal organizations say Aug. 4’s dam break at a British Columbia mine shows what could happen at proposed near-border mines. But some B.C. tribal governments strongly support development.

“Here you’ll see some of the types of ways that we use oolichans. They’re sun-dried as well as smoked.”

Kerry Small explains what’s in a display case in northwest British Columbia’s Nisga’a Museum. It’s a gleaming, glass-fronted building in a wide valley about 20 miles from the Alaska border.

The valley surrounds the Nass River, home to the Nisga’a Nation and its tribal government, which is at the forefront of Canada’s aboriginal rights movement.

Small points to a carved, rectangular, wooden dish used to process oolichans, also called hooligan or candlefish.

“The bottom’s laid with fern and you cook it down, and that’s how you create the grease. And this is oolichan grease. It’s like liquid gold. It’s one of the most valuable items still to this day,” she says.

Kevin McKay, executive chairman of the Nisga’a Government’s legislature, says the Nisga’a people depend on the health of the Nass River to keep the oolichan coming, as well as salmon.

“The oolichan has been called the survival fish because it’s a very important part of our cycle of food that we get in abundance,” McKay says.

But they also need jobs.

That’s one of the reasons the tribal government signed an agreement this summer pledging support for the Kerr-Sulpherrets-Mitchell Mine, under development to the north.

“What we told our citizens … (is) we have taken every measure and every opportunity to mitigate those environmental impacts throughout the life of the project,” he says.

KSM will store its tailings–ground up rock leftover from ore processing–behind dams within the Naas River watershed.

“We had some concerns with the original design they had presented throughout the course of our negotiations,” he says.

McKay says those changes will cost the developer a couple hundred million dollars. KSM says changes made to address aboriginal concerns bring the amount to $500 million.

“Now I dare say, without that significant move by the proponent, it may not have been possible for the parties to reach a mutual agreement.”

Total development costs are estimated at $5.3 billion.

McKay says the Nisga’a-KSM agreement also provides lump-sum payments, training, jobs and environmental protections.

“There are no 100 percent guarantees. We go into this with our eyes wide open,” he says.

The mine faces objections on this side of the border.

“I just firmly, firmly, firmly believe that this is a bad idea,” says Ketchikan’s Rob Sanderson Jr., who co-chairs the Southeast Alaska-based United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group. It’s backed by the Tlingit-Haida Central Council, as well as several Southeast communities’ tribal governments.

All the groups say the KSM and other near-border mines could threaten the Unuk, the Stikine or the Taku rivers, which flow from Canada into Alaska.

“We live in a very seismic area of the world and one of the big concerns about the KSM is the scale,” he says.

And it’s not just when the mines are running. Sanderson and other critics worry about the decades–or centuries–after they close, when tailings dams fail.

“If they get up to capacity and production and we have a catastrophic event, that pretty much puts southern Southeast into a dead zone,” he says.

Those objections won the backing of the Washington, D.C.-based National Congress of American Indians this summer. It’s the nation’s largest Native organization. It’s urging Congress, the White House and the State Department to push Canadian officials to increase environmental scrutiny.

But the KSM’s environmental-protection plans are close to approval. And, the Red Chris Mine, owned by the same company that had the dam collapse, is already extracting ore within the Stikine River watershed.

KSM developers have also won support from the Gitxsan Nation, a British Columbia aboriginal government east of Nisga’a territory.

Another tribal government, the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, had opposed the project, but signed an agreement this summer.

“What we’re concerned about is the tailings facility that does drain into Gitanyow territory,” says Fish and Wildlife Biologist Kevin Koch, who works for the Gitanyow Fisheries Authority, a branch of that government.

He says mining’s impacts may not be immediately obvious.

“When some metal or element of some kind is released into water, it might not directly kill fish, but it might impair some part of their physiology or behavior. They might lose their ability to avoid predators, that sort of thing,” he says.

It might also hurt salmon’s sense of smell, which makes it hard to find their spawning grounds.

The Gitanyow’s KSM agreement is not a full endorsement. Rather, it sets some rules and guarantees the tribal government is part of environmental monitoring.

“For Gitanyow to feel that their territory’s protected, they need to be directly involved. They need to have people on the ground taking part in the work, analyzing the work, reporting directly to the chiefs rather than government or industry just reporting annually,” Koch says, speaking as a biologist, not as a tribal representative.

Gitanyow staff have done field work, studying salmon and moose habitat.

Another tribal government, the Tahltan Central Council, has also expressed concerns about transboundary mines.

Mine proponents say that’s part of the assessment process required by government regulators.

Brent Murphy is spokesman and top environmental official for Seabridge Gold, the Kerr-Sulpherrets-Mitchell Mine’s developer.

“The guiding principal behind the design of the KSM project was the protection of the downstream environments,” he says.

Other mine projects concerning tribal groups are Galore Creek and Schaft Creek in the Stikine River watershed, and Tulsequah Chief near the Taku River.

Alaska’s seafood industry is getting caught in the middle of a power struggle between Russia and western nations.

Ever since Russia seized part of Ukraine this winter, sanctions against it have been stacking up. Now, Russia’s fighting back by banning food imports from the United States and a handful of other countries.

Alaska shipped almost $9 million worth of pollock to Russia last year. Some of it went to fast food chains, including McDonald’s. A significant chunk of it is used for making surimi — better known as fake crab.

At least one shipment of surimi was on its way to Russia when the ban came out on Thursday. Undercurrent News reports that the fish could get diverted to South Korea or another eastern market.

That’s got some American fishing advocates fired up. A former U.S. Congressman has started the “Just Say Nyet” campaign, seeking a corresponding ban on Russian fish coming into the States.

But it’s slow going: As of Friday afternoon, his petition to the federal government had only gathered 18 signatures.