IPHC regulatory proposals, 2016 Heather L. Gilroy and Bruce M. Leaman The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) requests that IPHC and agency staffs and the industry submit regulation proposals prior to the IPHC Annual Meeting in January for review at the meeting. The IPHC regulations are in place until an action is taken to change a regulation. The submitted proposals are reviewed at the Annual Meeting and if the Commission determines changes are needed to any regulation, they are approved, and all regulations are recommended to the domestic governments with implementation through the Condition of License in B.C. and the Federal Register in the U.S. This report provides the 2016 regulation proposals from IPHC staff, the agency staffs, and the halibut industry. In addition, the IPHC staff provided their recommendations or comments on the agency and industry proposals. IPHC staff regulatory proposals Fishing seasons As in the past years, the staff recommends March 15 to November 7 opening and closing dates for the quota share and tribal fishing season. This recommendation is a compromise between minimizing interceptions of migrating fish and providing opportunity for market presence of wild halibut. All Area 2A commercial fisheries should also occur within this period. For the Area 2A directed commercial fishery, the staff recommends an opening pattern similar to 2015, starting the last week of June with a series of 10-hour periods, with fishing period limits. Therefore we recommend the following series for 2016: June 22, July 6, July 20, August 3, August 17, September 2, and August 31. The size of the fishing period limits will be determined when more information is available on fleet participation. Retention of tagged halibut regulations The current IPHC regulations allow any vessel at any time to retain and land a halibut that bears a Commission external tag at the time of capture, if the halibut with the tag still attached is reported at the time of landing and made available for examination by the representative of the Commission or by an authorized officer. The IPHC staff recommends that halibut with Commission external tags be exempt from sport daily bag, size, and possession limits and can be retained outside of the sport fishing season as it is important for IPHC to receive the scientific information from the tagged halibut. Log regulations for the Alaska commercial fishery IPHC regulations list the acceptable logbooks for use in the Alaskan commercial halibut fishery and although the NMFS Groundfish/IFQ Daily Fishing Longline and Pot Gear logbook is listed, IPHC staff are recommending explicitly including the NMFS electronic version of this logbook. 186
Government agency regulatory proposals Catch sharing plans The Commission does not make allocative decisions within regulatory areas or among different user groups. That authority rests with both the United States and Canadian national governments. However, the Commission must endorse the domestic catch sharing plans (CSP) in order for them to be enacted. For 2016, the staff recommends that the Commission endorse the CSPs developed by each government. Areas 2A, 2B, and 4CDE The staff recommends that the Commission endorse the CSP developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for Area 2A and by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) for Area 4CDE, as well as the CSP allocation developed by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for Area 2B. Areas 2C and 3A The IPHC has received a request from the NPFMC (Appendix 1) concerning management measures for the 2016 Areas 2C and 3A commercial and charter fisheries. The NPFMC is recommending that the Commission adopt a combined catch limit for the commercial and charter fisheries in each of Areas 2C and 3A. A combined catch limit is necessary to conform to the CSP that has been developed by the NPFMC, and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to determine the allocation between the two sectors. To allow the sport charter fisheries to be managed to the charter allocation within the CSP the NPFMC is recommending management measures be adopted as part of the IPHC regulations. To determine the necessary management measures, the NPFMC reviewed the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) analysis of the sport fisheries and received guidance from a halibut charter advisory committee. The recommendation provides guidance to the Commission on how to adjust the measures to account for differences between adopted catch limits and the Blue Line. The following are the recommendations that would be adopted in IPHC regulations (with noted adjustments) for the sport charter fisheries by regulatory area: Area 2C: One-fish daily bag limit, with a reverse slot limit allowing the retention of one fish, 42 inches or 80 inches in length, with head on. If the final charter allocation is sufficiently higher than the Blue Line to accommodate a change in the reverse slot limit, the NPFMC recommends adjusting the size of the lower limit upward to meet the allocation. If the final charter allocation is below the Blue Line, the NPFMC recommends first adding an annual limit of five (5) halibut, and if further restrictions are required, adjust the size of the lower limit downward to meet the allocation. Area 3A: Two-fish daily bag limit. One fish of any size and a maximum size of the second halibut is 28 inches, with head on. There is an annual limit of four (4) fish. Each vessel is limited to one halibut trip per calendar day. In addition, each charter halibut permit is 187
limited to one charter halibut fishing trip per vessel per calendar day. Charter halibut fishing will be prohibited on Wednesday, all sport fishing season. Additionally, the NMPFC is recommending including for the Area 3A charter fishery a requirement to record halibut information on the back of license or harvest card as an enforcement mechanism for the annual limit. If an annual limit is required for Area 2C, a similar provision would apply in that area. The NPFMC recommends changes to the above recommendations if the Blue Line is not adopted and they are provided here. If the final Area 3A FCEY is halfway between the 2015 FCEY and the 2016 Blue Line, it would equate to a charter allocation of 1.84 million pounds. In this case, the NPFMC recommends an increase in the annual limit to five (5) halibut. If the Area 3A charter allocation is the same as 2015 (1.89 million pounds), increase the maximum size of one of the two fish to 29 and increase to a five (5) fish annual limit. No recommendation was provided if a lower allocation for Area 3A is adopted, where the NPFMC provided management options for a lower allocation in Area 2C. For these sport charter fisheries, the IPHC regulations currently state that if the halibut is filleted at sea the entire carcass must be retained on board the vessel until all fillets are offloaded. As agreed at the 2015 Annual Meeting this regulation would be removed from IPHC regulations once the NMFS regulations had the same requirement in place. This regulation will be in the 2016 NMFS regulations so the intent is to remove it from 2016 IPHC regulations. Allow longline pot gear as a legal commercial halibut gear in the Gulf of Alaska (Areas 2C, 3A and 3B) The NPFMC recommended that the Secretary of Commerce approved regulations to allow the use of longline pot gear in the Gulf of Alaska for the sablefish IFQ fishery, largely due to whale depredation in the area. The NMFS hopes to implement this regulation change for the 2016 IFQ season. The IPHC received a request from the NPMFC (Appendix 2) that the IPHC allow the use of longline sablefish pot gear in Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B as a legal gear for the halibut IFQ fishery, where legal-sized halibut would be retained if unused IFQ was available. The NPFMC intent is to allow IFQ holders to retain incidentally caught halibut. A maximum retainable amount (MRA) is not part of the recommendation and the intent is to monitor this fishery, gather data on the incidental catch of halibut, and consider, in coordination with IPHC, an MRA if it is warranted. For further information on allowing retention of halibut in sablefish pot see the NPFMC Discussion Paper: http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2015im/10biii_d2halibutretentioninsablefishpots.pdf The Commission is the authority for the definition of legal gear for commercial halibut retention, so the Commission could choose to: retain status quo and not allow the retention of halibut with sablefish pot gear; allow retention, but request that the Council establish an MRA for halibut retention prior to the implementation of the regulation; allow retention of halibut with sablefish pot gear with a sunset date for review of the regulation; or allow retention with no restrictions. 188
Industry regulatory proposals The industry regulatory proposals are provided in Appendix 3. In addition they are listed below with comments from the IPHC staff. The numbering of the list below corresponds to the attached documents. 1. Lower the commercial fi shery size limit to 30 inches (Fishing Vessel Owners Association Incorporated). The IPHC staff notes that this proposal was also received in 2014. The staff conducted a review of this measure for the 2015 Annual Meeting (see Martell et al. IPHC 2015 Blue Book; http://www.iphc.int/publications/bluebooks/iphc_bluebook_2015.pdf) and noted that the merit of this measure in terms of yield to the fishery and reduced wastage were critically dependent on the realized selectivity on smaller fish exercised by the fishery. There could be either benefits or detriments to a reduced size limit, depending on selectivity changes. The directed halibut fishery has been part of the new observer monitoring program in Alaska since 2013. However, the coverage does not include vessels under 40 feet so in the absence of full at-sea observations of catches and releases to estimate realized selectivity, the staff would not be able to interpret the results of such a change in size limit. 2. Amend current IPHC fi sh ticket reporting requirements for the Area 2A tribes to record Tribal Identifi cation Number which is not a Vessel Identifi cation Number (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission) The IPHC staff supports this proposal. The intent of the current regulation is that the Tribal Identification Number be recorded, not the Vessel Identification Number, and the Tribal Identification number is being recorded on the fish ticket. Therefore, the regulation wording should be changed to ensure the regulation matches the intent. 3. Revise US commercial fi shing logbook requirements for operators to complete a logbook for fi shing trips, from the current defi nition of when fi shing for halibut, to making a landing of halibut (Alaska Longline Fishermen s Assn). IPHC Staff note that in IPHC regulations, log records are required to be updated not later than 24 hours after 0000 (midnight) local time for each day fished and prior to the offloading or sale of halibut taken during that fishing trip. Therefore, triggering the completion of a halibut logbook to a landing would be inconsistent with the requirement to record fishing information within 24 hours after midnight. Allowing information to be recorded after the landing would not assist on the water enforcement and it might be more difficult to accurately record information at a later date. Concerns that operators in other fisheries (sablefish, Pacific cod, rockfishes) could be cited for not completing a halibut log does not appear consistent with enforcement actions. In 2015, NMFS enforcement stated that only five logbook violations were noted and in all cases halibut was on board the vessel. In Alaska, the IPHC staff collects logbooks from commercial halibut fishers as well as commercial sablefish fishers. IPHC is interested in all logs where halibut is landed whether halibut is targeted or not, and for sets where halibut is targeted, whether halibut is caught or not. The proposal states that the regulations could affect subsistence fishers which is not correct because subsistence fishers are not required to keep a logbook, because Section 16 189
(Logs), only applies to commercial fishing as stated in the Application section (2) of IPHC regulations. In addition, if an IFQ holder is onboard a vessel and there is unused IFQ halibut, halibut is required to be retained by NMFS regulations. Therefore, the burden is already on the vessel operator to know if unused IFQ is available, and has no link to IPHC logbook regulations. The NMFS regulations are as follows: 679.7 Prohibitions. In addition to the general prohibitions specifi ed in 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following: (f) IFQ fi sheries. (11) Discard halibut or sablefi sh caught with fi xed gear from any catcher vessel when any IFQ permit holder aboard holds unused halibut or sablefi sh IFQ for that vessel category and the IFQ regulatory area in which the vessel is operating, unless: (i) Discard of halibut is required as prescribed in the annual management measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to 300.62 of chapter III of this title; (ii) Discard of sablefi sh is required under 679.20 or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard of sablefi sh is required under laws of the State of Alaska; or (iii) Discard of halibut or sablefi sh is required under other provisions. The two conditions for halibut logbook recording are: at any time when fishing for halibut, and when a halibut is required to be retained by an IFQ holder during commercial fishing for other species. Therefore, neither the IPHC nor NMFS enforcement staff agree with the concerns that vessel operators will be unduly forced to keep halibut logs when not appropriate and therefore do not support this regulation proposal. 4. Establish a maximum size retention limit of 60 inches for Pacific Halibut in all regulatory areas for both the sport and commercial fi sheries (Commercial Halibut Fisherman, AK). Similar to item 1 above, the absence of full fleet at-sea observations prevents the staff from being able to assess the impacts of such a regulatory change. This includes estimating the change in selectivity as well as impacts of increased release mortality for these larger fish. Both this measure and item 1 above will be investigated and evaluated as part of the Commission s Management Strategy Evaluation. Staff does note that while larger fish produce larger numbers of eggs, the number of these larger fish is small and the simple number of eggs released has only a very weak relationship with the strength of recruitment from a given year. Environmental factors appear to have the dominant impact on recruitment strength. 5. Four separate proposals concerning fi shing on spawning grounds, protecting fi sh >72 inches, barbless hooks, and the HARM project (Doug Hatfi eld). Proposal received after the deadline. This proposal was provided under the catch limit comments but IPHC staff are presenting it as regulation proposals because most of the support is for changing regulations. Received Dec 31, 2015. The four recommendations are: support a commercial fishery that opens after March and April; support releasing halibut over 72 inches, barbless hooks, and the Halibut Angler Release Mortality (HARM) program. See comments under item 1 and 4 which provide feedback on size limit recommendations. For more information on the HARM project refer to information provided on the website: http://www.alaskaharmreduction.com/home.html 190
Appendix 1. C 5 Charter Halibut Management Measures Council motion December 12, 2015 The Council recommends the following management measures for the 2016 charter halibut fishery in Area 2C and Area 3A, based on initial reference (blue line) allocations of 1,771,000 lbs in Area 3A and 847,000 lbs in Area 2C, resulting from the IPHC interim meeting. Area 3A recommendations: Two fish daily bag limit Maximum size of one of the two fish is 28 One trip per day (use of each charter halibut permit is limited to one charter halibut fishing trip per vessel per calendar day. Also limit each vessel to one charter halibut fishing trip per calendar day.) 4 fish annual limit Prohibition on halibut charter fishing on Wednesdays, all year Include a requirement to record halibut on the back of the license or harvest record card as an enforcement mechanism for the annual limit. If the final Area 3A FCEY is halfway between the 2015 FCEY and the 2016 blue line, it would equate to a charter allocation of 1.84 mlbs. In this case, increase the annual limit to 5 fish. If the Area 3A charter allocation is the same as 2015 (1.89 mlbs), increase the maximum size of one of the two fish to 29 and increase to a 5 fish annual limit. Area 2C recommendations: One fish daily bag limit Reverse slot limit of U42 O80 (must be 42 or 80 ) If the final charter allocation is sufficiently higher than the blue line to accommodate a change in the reverse slot limit, adjust the size of the lower limit upward to meet the allocation. If the final charter allocation is below the blue line, the first restriction added would be a 5 fish annual limit, and if further restrictions are needed, adjust the size of the lower limit downward to meet the allocation. The regulations for GAF remain the same. 191
Appendix 2. North Pacific Fishery Management Council Dan Hull, Chairman 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Chris Oliver, Executive Director Anchorage, AK 99501-2252 Telephone (907) 271-2809 Fax (907) 271-2817 Visit our website: http://www.npfmc.org November 20, 2015 Dr. Bruce Leaman International Pacific Halibut Commission 2320 W. Commodore Way Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98199-1287 Re: Retention of incidentally caught Pacific halibut in Alaska sablefish pot fisheries Dear Dr. Leaman: In 2015, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) recommended that the Secretary of Commerce approve regulations to allow the use of longline pot gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) sablefish IFQ fishery, largely to counteract whale depredation in these fisheries. The National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region office hopes to implement those regulations in time for the 2016 fishing season. One element of the NPFMC s recommendations for the GOA is to allow sablefish fishermen using pot gear to retain incidentally caught legal-size halibut if they possess the necessary halibut quota, as is currently the case when using hook-and-line gear. However, implementation of the halibut retention element is contingent upon the IPHC amending its regulations at Section 19, which do not define pots as legal gear for halibut retention in the GOA areas. The purpose of this letter is to highlight the Council s action, request consideration of complementary action by the IPHC at its January 2016 Annual Meeting, and to provide context for the different approaches that the NPFMC has taken regarding incidental halibut retention in the GOA and the Bering Sea during recent years. NPFMC staff is preparing a discussion paper that further outlines its recent action for the GOA, a similar action that was considered for the Bering Sea sablefish pot fishery but is not currently being pursued, and an explanation of the NPFMC s intent for these measures. The discussion paper also catalogues the correspondence between NPFMC and IPHC on this issue, which dates back to 2009. This paper will be available for the IPHC s reference prior to your interim meeting in early December. In the meantime I have attempted to capture the basic intent and rationale of the Council in this letter. The NPFMC s primary intent in recommending the retention of incidentally caught halibut is to avoid a situation where regulations require the discard, and associated discard mortality, of otherwise legally harvestable fish. The NPFMC neither intends nor expects GOA fishermen using longline pot gear to target halibut. In many cases, the NPFMC uses a maximum retainable amount (MRA) limit to cap the amount of a non-target commercial species that may be retained in a particular directed fishery. While the NPFMC emphasized in its public deliberations that its intent is to allow only for the retention of incidentally caught halibut, it did not pursue the setting of an MRA for the GOA. The NPFMC determined that, because no sablefish pot gear fishery exists in the GOA, data on the incidence of halibut in this particular gear sector and area that would be necessary to set an MRA do not exist. Under these circumstances, any MRA set for 192
the GOA sablefish pot fishery would be arbitrary and not in accordance with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NPFMC also recently considered recommending incidental halibut retention in sablefish pot fisheries in the area of overlap between the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish management area (BSAI) and IPHC Area 4A. In contrast to the GOA action, the NPFMC did consider an MRA as a tool to maintain the incidental nature of halibut retention in the BSAI because the requisite information was available. The NPFMC did not ultimately come to a resolution on the MRA issue because the action was tabled once it was determined that only a small number of sablefish quota shareholders in the BSAI also possessed halibut quota, and that there was in fact minimal interest in such an allowance. In addition to that, the NPFMC choose not to pursue the BSAI action after hearing testimony that stakeholders preferred not to create a patchwork of regulations across sablefish fisheries. The Council noted that it might revisit this issue for the BSAI once it has a better understanding of the IPHC s position on halibut retention in sablefish pots in the GOA. For purposes of the GOA action taken by the Council in 2015, complementary action by the IPHC to allow pots as legal gear for halibut retention (again, only legal-sized halibut and only if fishermen possess halibut quota) would allow for full implementation of this management measure for the 2016 fisheries. It would be the Council s intent to monitor this fishery closely, gather data on the incidental catch of halibut, and consider, in coordination with the IPHC, establishing an MRA in the future if it becomes warranted. Other alternatives include: (1) not allowing retention of halibut, but ideally setting a timeline for future reconsideration after we have collected information on incidental catch rates, gear selectivity, size, etc; (2) allowing retention, but requesting that the Council establish an MRA for halibut retention from the outset. This alternative would likely delay implementation of the program by a year, in order to develop a regulatory MRA standard. The Council would also be guessing as to an appropriate MRA, and would likely attempt to set it sufficiently high as to not create excessive regulatory discards, but sufficiently low as to preclude targeting of halibut. In summary, the Council believes that we can accomplish the same overall intent by allowing retention at this time, monitoring the incidental catch rates, and establishing an MRA if and when data indicates that limiting retention is warranted. I will be in attendance at your upcoming interim meeting, as well as the 2016 annual meeting, to answer any questions you may have on this issue. Sincerely, Chris Oliver Executive Director 193
Appendix 3. 194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
#5 Sickle-Hatfield Every Halibut Counts From: Sickle-Hatfield <esickleh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 8:18 PM Subject: Every Halibut Counts Dear IPHC, I hope that in 2016 some serious thought and discussion will be given to the following. (1) Has it been scientifically verified, that allowing longliners to fish Halibut spawning grounds in March/April, is not having a detrimental impact on overall health of Halibut stocks? From Report # 19 (1953) Page 11 I quote, "...The fishery has gradually been confined to the months of May and June. At this time of year,the spawning stocks have left the spawning grounds to become dispersed so that they are no longer subject to an intensive fishery." (2) In my humble opinion,any Halibut over 72 inch length, should be cherished as a "Rock Star Spawner ", capable of producing millions of eggs for the future. Hanging dead from a meat pole for a trophy picture is not an option as the challenge of understanding changing ocean dynamics increases. (3) Barbless hooks. Currently mandatory in some Wa.& Or. rivers to protect White Sturgeon. Does IPHC have any data to encourage/require "Barbless"? (4) The "HARM" project as so mentioned on page 19 (2014 Annual report). Is it working as good as it sounds? How about a derby for largest released Halibut documented using "HARM"? That's my dream/hope for the future of Halibut. Release a "Rock Star Spawner" (72">) from your barbless hook and document it with "HARM" app. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Doug Hatfield 206