Council Motion on Charter Halibut Catch Sharing Plan
April 2, 2012
The Council moves to amend its previous action on the charter halibut catch sharing plan (CSP) . This becomes a new preliminary preferred alternative:
The Council adopts the March 27, 2012, recommendation of the Halibut Charter Management Implementation Committee and the Advisory Panel to adopt the “2012 model” for determining annual charter halibut management measures under the CSP and removing the current matrix of management measures that are included in the current proposed rule. With this change, the Council also removes the target range around the allocations of +/- 3.5%.
The Council also adopts the unanimous recommendation of the Halibut Charter Management Implementation Committee and the Advisory Panel to use ADF&G logbboks as the primary data collection method. The Council recommends using an adjustment factor based on the five-year average (2006-2010) of the difference between the harvest estimates provided by the logbooks and the SWHS, with the adjustment factor reduced by the amount of harvest attributed to skipper and crew. The Council’s understanding is that applying this adjustment factor would result in the following changes to the CSP allocations:
Area 3A adjustment factor =15.4%
Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tier 1 = 15.4%
Adjusted CSP allocation = (15.4% * 15.4%) + 15.4% = 178%
Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tiers 2 through 4 = 14.0%
Adjusted CSP allocation = (14% * 15.4%) + 14% = 16.2%
Area 2C adjustment factor = 5.6%
Area 2C Current CSP allocation in Tier 1 = 17.3%
Adjusted CSP allocation = (17.3% * 5.6%) + 17.3% = 18.3%
Area 2C current CSP allocation in Tiers 2 through 4 – 15.1%
Adjusted CSP allocation = (15.1% * 5.6%) = 15.1% = 15.9%
The Council recommends revisions to the GAF program as follows:
• This revision would issue GAF in numbers of fish. Conversions of IFQ pounds to numbers of fish would be based on the average weight of GAF from the previous year.
• In the first year of the GAF program, the GAF weight to number of fish conversion factor is based on the previous year’s data or most recent year without maximum size limit in effect.
• Define leasing limitation from one IFQ share holder from 10% or 1500 pound whichever is greater , to 10% of IFQ holdings in 2C, and to 15% or 1500 pounds in 3A, whichever is greater
• Include a requirement for angler to mark GAF by removing the tips of the upper and lower lobes of the tail and GAF holder to report the length of retained GAF halibut to NMFS through the NMFS approved electronic reporting system.
• A complete review within five years of the start of the GAF program, taking into account the economic effects of both sectors.
The Council recommends consideration of a letter to the IPHC supporting the idea of separate BAWM accountability between the halibut sectors, and revising the preamble to the rule describing the method that the Council would expect to be used by the IPHC in setting catch limits.
The Council requests that the analysis be revised to incorporate the changes to the preliminary preferred alternative described above and include analysis of the following options for consideration to revise the charter allocations at lower levels of abundance:
Option 1: Area 2C
At a combined catch limit of <5 mlbs, establish the CSP allocation at the upper end of the original range proposed for the CSP (20.8%); at a combined catch limit of ≥5 – , <9mlbs, establish the CSP at the allocation at the upper end of the original range proposed for the CSP (18.6%).
At combined catch limits of≤9 mlbs, maintain the original target CSP allocation of 15.1%.
Option 2: Area 3A
At a combined catch limit of <10 mlbs, establish the CSP allocation at the upper end of the original range proposed for the CSP (18.9%); at a combined catch limit of ≥10 – , <20mlbs, establish the CSP at the allocation at the upper end of the original range proposed for the CSP (17.5%).
At combined catch limits of≤20 mlbs, maintain the original target CSP allocation of 14.0%.
Note: Under the 2012 model, the +/- 3.5% range around the allocation would be removed, and the Council would be annually recommending management measures that minimize the difference between the projected harvest and the target allocation , without exceeding the allocation.
With the above additions and revisions, the intent of the Council is to review the CSP analysis as a whole and take final action in the near future.