Kodiak Daily MIrror, June 23, 2026
At their June meeting the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) requested a discussion paper from its staff that would “form the basis for regulatory alternatives” for a possible action to define a performance standard for pelagic trawl gear that could be used to enforce limits on bottom contact. A “performance standard” is simply a way to measure bottom contact.
At the present time there is no enforceable performance standard. They can’t reliably tell whether a net contacts the bottom, or the nature of that contact. Without that information they can’t put enforceable limits on bottom contact in place.
Nevertheless, the Council was not shy about signaling that they intend to do just that: “The Council intends to evaluate and reduce bottom contact in pelagic trawl gear fisheries … particularly in areas in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska closed to nonpelagic trawl gear in light of the continuing depressed state of red king crab populations.” In other words, they don’t want the cod ends and footrope chains of pelagic trawls banging on the bottom in areas they have closed to bottom trawling to protect crab. The requested discussion paper is expected to identify “options for viable and enforceable mechanisms to reduce bottom contact…”
The Council motion recognizes “data are lacking regarding the magnitude of unobserved crab mortality from interactions with pelagic trawl gear …” so part of what staff is expected to do is create “refined bottom contact estimates as a baseline from which to improve.” To do that they will identify “areas that are currently closed to vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear and open to vessels using pelagic trawl gear, summarizing pelagic trawl effort in those areas during the most recent 10 years, and characterizing baseline bottom contact using the best available information.” So, they will make their best guess at how much contact has been going on over the last ten years and use that as a baseline to judge whether future efforts to reduce bottom contact are working.
The motion seems focused on reducing bottom contact in “specific management areas,” namely where vulnerable populations of crab are known to exist, as opposed to a blanket effort to generally reduce bottom contact by pelagic gear.
The requested paper is expected to explore whether regulations would be best implemented on a vessel, sector, or cooperative level. In other words, do they do their level enforcement actions on individual boats, on the separate sectors (catcher/processors, shore-based catcher vessels, and mothership-based vessels), or on a Bering Sea cooperative level? They also want to look at a potential cap on bottom contact in protected areas that would, if exceeded, shut down pelagic trawling in those areas.
Finally, they want more information on “verifiable pelagic trawl gear modifications, technologies, or operational standards.” Which is to say: “keep us up to date on whatever might work.”
“But the Council is also sensitive about upsetting the pollock applecart. They want potential benefits in reduced bottom contact to be weighed against resulting harms to the directed fishery. “
Terry Haines
The paper should discuss each identified mechanism above for reducing pelagic trawl bottom contact relative to its effects on the amount of bottom contact, CPUE, fishing time, effort displacement, and total impact per unit of target catch.”
The motion then asks for projections on how measures to reduce bottom contact might change the rate of prohibited species caught. It goes on to endorse research on whether the identified crab protection areas are still in the right place. Surveys suggest they may be moving north as waters warm.
Also endorsed in the motion were ongoing efforts on gear innovation, aided by special permits issued to test experimental gear.
In a separate motion the Council expressed its appreciation to the pollock industry for positively responding to their request that they implement “dynamic spatial closures” this year for pelagic trawling in the Bering Sea Red King Crab Savings Area (RKCSA). A dynamic spatial closure just means that they stay out of certain fishing grounds, and that closed area could change seasonally, or based on new information. In this case the Council request amounts to “try to stay off the king crab.” The motion also pre-requests that the dynamic spatial closures be in effect for 2027 pollock “A” season too, and that closures be “based on recent winter pot surveys and best available information.”
The fact that the Council is punting this to industry is an admission that by the time the Council can grind out a regulation to the same effect, years can go by and it might be too late. The fact that the fishermen are able to comply is a tribute to the robust and well-organized nature of the pollock industry. That they did not hesitate is a recognition that in the end the Council holds the big hammer.
Terry Haines produces public radio’s Alaska Fisheries Report at KMXT/Kodiak. Haines is a longtime fisherman and current Mayor of Kodiak.
NPFMC Newsletter/June 2026 — Pelagic Trawl Gear Research Updates and Performance Standard
During its June meeting, the Council requested a discussion paper to assess viable and enforceable regulatory mechanisms to reduce bottom contact of pelagic trawl gear in areas currently closed to non-pelagic trawl gear in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska. The purpose of this action is to reduce the uncertainty associated with unobserved crab mortality, and to continually improve upon existing fishing practices in light of depressed red king crab populations and changing ecosystem conditions.
Pelagic Trawl Image from NPFMC
The action was informed by presentations updating the Council on ongoing crab and pelagic trawl gear innovation research and science, and public input. The information requested at the Council’s June meeting will support potential development of new management measures to reduce bottom contact by pelagic trawl gear, such as:
- a maximum bottom contact rate, which is the maximum area over which gear-seafloor interactions may occur, at a vessel, sector or Bering Sea cooperative level;
- a swept-area cap at a vessel, sector or Bering Sea cooperative level; and/or
- pelagic trawl gear modifications, technologies, or operational standards.
These measures would build on current protections for closed areas, and reduce seafloor contact from status quo conditions, not eliminate it entirely. This is in recognition that some bottom contact is necessary to effectively catch pollock and avoid salmon, that pelagic trawl gear has lower intensity seafloor contact than bottom trawl gear, and that pelagic gear is designed and regulated as a distinct gear type with different bottom contact characteristics. In evaluating these different options, the Council will consider the potential effects on bottom contact, CPUE, fishing time, effort displacement, and tradeoffs that may result in changes in PSC.
The Council also endorsed continued research on pelagic trawl gear innovation, including the pollock industry’s experimental pelagic gear modification project, and research on crab habitat and distribution to improve understanding of fishing interactions with crab resources in support of future management decisions. The Council focused its action on unobserved crab mortality, as the Fishing Effects model remains the primary peer-reviewed tool used to evaluate fishing effects on benthic habitats in Alaska, and the most recent review concluded that the adverse effects of fishing activity on Essential Fish Habitat are no more than minimal or temporary.
The Council’s second motion on this item recognized the pollock industry for implementing voluntary, dynamic spatial closures in 2026 to avoid Bristol Bay red king crab and requested that similar measures continue during the 2027 pollock A season, while recognizing that salmon bycatch avoidance remains the highest priority.
Staff contact is Kate Haapala.
