May 11, 2017 TO
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
John F. Quinn, J.D., Ph.D., Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM DATE:
May 11, 2017
TO:
Groundfish Committee
FROM:
Groundfish Plan Development Team
SUBJECT:
Potential management measures for Atlantic halibut
One of the Council’s groundfish priorities for 2017 is addressing Atlantic halibut management in the upcoming framework adjustment (i.e., Framework Adjustment 57). This framework is scheduled to be initiated at the June Council meeting. In preparation, the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) met on April 11 and 12, 2017 in Portland, Maine to discuss potential changes to the management of Atlantic halibut, including modifications to accountability measures (AMs). The following summarizes the PDT’s discussion and recommendations. A. Background 1. Atlantic Halibut Stock Assessment The 2015 operational assessment for Atlantic halibut was rejected as a basis for management advice. As a result, the overfishing status of Atlantic halibut is unknown. The Peer Review Panel examined the long term exploitation history of the stock and trends in fisheries independent surveys and concluded that the stock is overfished. The Panel noted the recent increase of halibut availability to the fishery, and recommended that the overfishing limit in fishing year 2016 be based on the previous fishing year, 2015 overfishing limit (OFL) of 198 mt, further modified to include an upward adjustment for Canadian catches. The 2015 assessment report highlighted a number of data needs, including research on stock structure, improved biological data, and a more precise and accurate survey. The Panel also noted that more research was needed to investigate stock identity, and determine whether halibut should be managed in US and Canadian waters as a transboundary resource. An operational assessment for Atlantic halibut is scheduled for the September of 2017. The Council worked closely with the NEFSC to hire Paul Rago on a contract to explore data-limited assessment approaches for Atlantic halibut. Such approaches will likely use a combination of fishery dependent and fishery independent data sources to assess the relative condition of the halibut resource. Since the results of the assessment will not be known until the fall of 2017, changes to the OFL will not be possible prior to fishing year 2018. This time lag in the availability of the assessment results may also make it difficult to select preferred management alternatives in the interim.
2. Recent Atlantic Halibut Catches and Management Atlantic halibut catches (landings and discards) in US waters have been increasing in recent years (Table 1 and Figure 1). Besides federally permitted vessels in the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery, state-only permitted commercial vessels in the state of Maine are a major contributor to halibut catches. In fishing year 2010, 36.2 mt of halibut were caught, with 22.4 mt captured by federally permitted commercial groundfish vessels, and 6.6 mt caught in all state waters fisheries. In fishing year 2015, halibut catches increased to 102 mt, with 59 mt caught by the federal commercial groundfish fishery and 41.1 mt from the state waters fisheries. Atlantic halibut catches in fishing year 2015 slightly exceeded the acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 100 mt, nearly causing AMs to be triggered for the federal groundfish fishery. Table 1- Recent halibut catch estimates by fishery (mt). Source: Final fishing year-end catch reports, GARFO FY 2010-FY 2015.
Total Fishing Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
OFL Quota 119 71 130 78 143 85 164 99 180 109 198 100 210 124
ACL Catch 69 36.2 76 52.1 83 75.7 96 79.0 106 78.6 97 102.0 119
Federal Groundfish Fishery % of total Catch catch 22.4 61.9% 42.6 81.8% 60.7 80.2% 54.7 69.2% 47.8 60.8% 59.0 57.8%
State Waters % of total Catch catch 6.6 18.2% 7.1 13.6% 13.3 17.6% 22.8 28.9% 28.7 36.5% 41.1 40.3%
Figure 1- Recent halibut catches (mt) by fishery. Source: Final fishing year-end catch reports, GARFO FY 2010-FY 2015.
2
Atlantic halibut management measures for federally permitted commercial groundfish vessels were designed to minimize directed fishing effort on the stock, while also not wasting all fish through required discarding under no possession. Vessels with a Northeast Multispecies Permit are allowed to land one halibut per trip. Amendment 16 increased the minimum landing size to 41 inches (104.1 cm) from 35.8 inches (91 cm), based on updated size-at-maturity information. Because halibut are not considered a target species, they are not allocated to sectors. There is a directed halibut fishery in Maine state waters, where commercial permit holders are allowed to land up to 25 halibut between May 1 and June 30 of each calendar year. The minimum landing size is 41 inches (104.1 cm), consistent with the federal size limit. In 2016, halibut tags were issued to 858 commercial permit holders in the State of Maine. Recreational and charter vessels are issued 5 tags per year. PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed the magnitude of latent effort in the state water fishery. Since 2009, only 7-10% of the halibut tags issued by the state of Maine have been filled annually. Of the 719 harvesters that were issued halibut tags in 2015, 215 of these reported catching one or more halibut. However, given the number of permit holders in the fishery, halibut catches by the Maine state water fishery could exceed the entire US ABC for this stock if effort in the state water fishery were to increase. For example in 2016, the State of Maine potentially issued 21,450 halibut tags (an approximation from the number of permits issues multiplied by 25 tags). Assuming the average kept halibut weighs 12.5kg, vessels in the State of Maine would have harvested 134mt of halibut in 2016 if 50% of the 21,450 tags were filled. This level of harvest would have exceeded the entire 2016 U.S. halibut quota (124mt). 3. Atlantic Halibut Accountability Measures There is a concern that the recent increase in Atlantic halibut catches could cause AMs to be triggered. The federal commercial groundfish fishery (sector and common pool) is the only portion of the fishery that is held accountable for overages of the halibut ABC. The AMs do not apply to state-only permitted vessels or the other components of the halibut fishery. The AMs would restrict the ability of the federal commercial groundfish fishery to target and catch marketable species, such as haddock and winter flounder, and these AMs will likely result in adverse economic impacts to the groundfish fishery on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine. Atlantic halibut AMs are triggered when the catches exceed the ACL plus a management uncertainty buffer. The AM would be triggered in either year 2 or year 3 following the overage, with the timing of the AM dependent upon the availability of data. The AMs were designed to account for an overage of up to 20%, and the AMs would need to be revised in the future if overages greater than 20% occurred. If the AM is triggered, vessels that possess a Northeast Multispecies permit, or a Category C or D Monkfish permit would not be allowed to retain halibut for the entire fishing year. Year-round gear restricted areas are also enacted as part of the AMs. Under the AM, federally permitted multispecies trawl vessels would be required to use selective large-mesh trawl gear (e.g., haddock separator trawl, rope trawl, or Rhule trawl) that is designed to reduce flatfish bycatch when fishing in a large area adjacent to Closed Area I (Figure 2) for the entire fishing year. Gillnet and longline vessels with a Northeast Multispecies permit would be prohibited from using either gear type in two areas of the Gulf of Maine for the entire fishing year. One of these AM areas is on Stellwagen Bank, and the other is on Platts Bank (Figure 2). 3
See also Attachment 1 for a description of the draft “No Action” alternative. Figure 2- Locations of the gear restricted Atlantic halibut AM areas.
B. Considerations for Changes to the Federal Atlantic Halibut Management System PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed a number of potential modifications to Atlantic halibut management and the AMs. The PDT noted that halibut catches may increase in the near future, as recreational fishing effort may intensify, and as directed effort in the Maine state water fishery increases. The PDT also discussed the results of the Canadian stock assessment for Atlantic halibut. Atlantic halibut in Canadian waters are managed and assessed as a unit stock that encompasses the southern Grand Banks, the Scotian Shelf, and eastern Georges Bank (NAFO areas 3NOPs4VWX5Zc). The Canadian assessment estimated that Atlantic halibut biomass is currently at the highest level observed in the time series (1970-2013), and that the current exploitation rates are the lowest on record. The PDT recognized that despite recent increases in the biomass of the halibut stocks in US and Canadian waters, current biomass levels likely represent a small fraction of the historical biomass and productivity that were observed in the 1800’s. In addition, the PDT briefly reviewed published studies related to halibut stock structure, which indicate the potential for connectivity to occur between Atlantic halibut in US and Canadian waters. For example, some published studies suggest that the larger stock of halibut in Canadian waters may serve as a source of larval and juvenile halibut to the smaller US stock.
4
1. Changes to the Accountability Measures PDT Discussion: The PDT identified a number of potential changes to the AMs that could be explored, including potential changes to the triggers.
Create a “tiered” AM system, with the size of the AM area determined by the amount of the overage in a previous year. This approach would be conceptually similar to the AMs that were developed for southern and northern windowpane flounder. Make changes to the location(s) and seasonality of the AM areas. If implemented, the AMs would be in place for an entire fishing year. Seasonal, rather than year-round, gear restricted areas could be considered if halibut are less abundant in the AM areas during certain times of the year. The locations of the AMs could also be modified if data suggests alternative locations could provide benefits to the Atlantic halibut resource. Eliminate some or all of the gear restricted areas, and implement a zero possession restriction for halibut as the AM, potentially considering other fisheries/permit type. The PDT discussed a number of potential changes to the AM trigger, and will investigate the AM triggers used in other data-limited fisheries for guidance. o One idea that was discussed by the PDT was to create a biomass trigger that can be used to determine whether the AM should be in place. o For example, if the biomass trends from an empirical approach assessment indicate that stock biomass has increased in at least three of the last five years, the increase in biomass could be used as a justification to prevent the AMs from being triggered. However, the PDT noted that an informative and reliable biomass index is needed for such a trigger to be effective, and it is currently uncertain whether suitable biomass indices exist for halibut. o This is conceptually similar to the biomass criterion developed for the windowpane stocks. The PDT discussed expanding a one-fish possession limit to all Federally permitted vessels. This could further control state waters by Federally permitted vessels.
2. Changes to the Quotas Increases to the Atlantic halibut quota could reduce the potential for AMs to be triggered in future years. An operational assessment for halibut is scheduled for September of 2017, and the results of the assessment could be used as a basis to change halibut quotas for the 2018 fishing year. Future changes in the halibut quota will be dependent upon the results of the assessment, the SSC’s recommendations, and the Council’s risk policy.
5
3. Changes to the Discard Mortality Assumption PDT Discussion: It is currently assumed that the discard mortality rate of halibut is 100%, and this discard mortality rate is used for catch accounting and the halibut stock assessment. At its September 2016 meeting, the Council passed a motion requesting that NMFS revise the discard mortality estimate of halibut by using the available scientific information on the subject. Further, the Council specified that the discard mortality rate could be revised by following a process that was synonymous to the approach used by GARFO during Framework 53 rule-making to change the discard mortality rate of Gulf of Maine cod captured in the recreational fishery. The PDT noted that a large proportion of the halibut that are captured in the federal commercial groundfish fishery are discarded. For example, in 2015, 63% of the halibut captured in the federal commercial groundfish fishery were discarded. In contrast, relatively few discards are reported from the State of Maine fishery. For example, in 2015 the reported landings in the State of Maine were 42.4 mt, with only 2.0 mt of discards (discards are reported from logbook data). The PDT is exploring federal observer data on the disposition of Atlantic halibut discards. The PDT reviewed several published studies which indicate that the discard mortality rate for Atlantic halibut is less than 100%, but there was substantial variability in discard mortality estimates amongst the published studies. In general, the available research indicated that the discard mortality is greater for halibut captured using trawl gear, and lower for halibut caught using longline gear, but discard mortality in both fisheries is affected by a number of biotic and abiotic factors. The PDT noted that the State of Maine halibut fishermen fish using longline gear, and are required to use circle hooks (sizes 14/0, 15/0, or 16/0). Published studies provide evidence that circle hooks reduce discard mortality compared to conventional J hooks. The assumed discard mortality rate could be revised as part of the 2017 operational assessment, and reductions in the assumed discard mortality rate may reduce the likelihood that AMs will be triggered in future years. However it is not clear at this time whether changes in the discard mortality rate will also influence the estimates of the revised ABCs and OFLs. Reductions in the mortality rates in recent years will likely result in most of the fishing mortality coming from state waters. Mortality effects from adjustments of the trip limits will also become more influential under a lower discard mortality rate assumption. Again, the results of the 2017 operational assessment will not be known until September of 2017. 4. Invoke Section 306b of the Magnuson Stevens Act Under Section 306b of the Magnuson Steven Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to extend its jurisdiction to regulate a state water fishery if the Secretary can demonstrate that the actions, or inaction, of the state jeopardizes the success of the federal management plan. Following its January 2017 meeting, the Council wrote a letter to GARFO requesting an overview of Section 306b and requested examples of how it has been used in the past. In addition the Council wrote letters to NOAA enforcement and the United States Coast Guard requesting that they enforce the three nautical mile limit as a high priority during the Atlantic halibut season (5/1 through 6/30). The letters were sent in response to concerns raised by the commercial groundfish industry that state-only permitted vessels were targeting halibut in federal waters.
6
PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed the possibility of having the Secretary of Commerce invoke Section 306b as a means to control directed Atlantic halibut fishing by Maine state water vessels. The PDT acknowledged some potential problems associated with this approach. Firstly, invoking this option would likely lead to lengthy court proceedings. Secondly, the PDT acknowledged that this approach may deteriorate relationships between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State of Maine. Finally, the PDT recognized that because there is not an accepted stock assessment for halibut, it may be difficult to uphold Section 306b in court. 5. Changes to Atlantic Halibut Allocations PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed a number of modifications to the way Atlantic halibut are allocated to the different components of the fishery. Under the current system, a portion of the halibut ACL is set aside for catches that are expected to occur in Canadian fisheries. For the 2016 FY, it was assumed that 34 mt of Atlantic halibut would be taken in the Canadian fishery. Next, halibut are set aside to account for predicted catches in the state water fishery and the “other” fisheries. The remaining quota is allocated to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. Absent any increases to the ACL, it is unlikely that changes to the halibut allocations will be sufficient to avoid AMs from being triggered in future years. However, the PDT did briefly acknowledge the potential for the Council to consider coordinated management with the ASMFC to allocate halibut quota on a state by state basis.
7
Attachment 1: DRAFT No Action Alternative Atlantic Halibut Management- Federal No Action would maintain the existing management measures currently in place for Atlantic halibut. Minimum Fish Size The minimum size for Atlantic halibut is 41 inches (104.1 cm.), total length for all groundfish vessels (commercial, recreational - private, party, and charter). The minimum size matches the median length at maturity for female halibut in the Gulf of Maine. A18 explained that the increase in minimum size would slightly increase opportunities for additional halibut to spawn prior to capture if halibut survive discarding events. Possession Limit Commercial vessels with a Northeast multispecies permit are permitted to land one legal sized Atlantic halibut per trip. Recreational vessels are permitted to land one legal sized Atlantic halibut per trip. Reactive Accountability Measures The federal groundfish fishery (sectors and common pool vessels) are the components of the fishery held accountable for an overage of the catch limits. The accountability measures (AMs) for Atlantic halibut do not apply to state only permitted vessels and other subcomponents of the Atlantic halibut fishery. As modified by Framework Adjustment (FW) 47 and 48, the AMs for Atlantic halibut are triggered when there is an overage in the overall annual catch limit (ACL) that is greater than the uncertainty buffer in any fishing year (i.e., exceeding the acceptable biological catch, ABC). If the AM is triggered, vessels possessing a Northeast multispecies permit or vessels operating under a Category C or D limited access monkfish permit would not be allowed to retain Atlantic halibut. In addition, gear restricted areas would be triggered. Trawl vessels possessing a northeast multispecies permit must use selective gear approved by the Regional Administrator (e.g., haddock separator trawl, Rhule trawl, rope separator trawl) that reduces catch of flounders in the Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area (Figure 2). Gillnet and longline vessels possessing a Northeast multispecies permit may not fish within the Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Areas (Figure 2). The AMs would be in place for a full fishing year, starting on May 1. The AM for an Atlantic halibut catch overage could apply in the next fishing year following an overage, or in the second fishing year following an overage depending on the availability of information. For example, If NMFS made a determination that an overage occurred in FY 2016 before the FY 2017 began, then the AM could apply in FY 2017. However, if NMFS made the determination that an overage occurred during the FY2016, and reliable information was not available until after FY 2017 began, then the AM would apply to in FY 2018. If updated catch information becomes available subsequent to the implementation of an AM that indicates that an ACL was not exceeded, the AM will be rescinded. For FY 2016, it is currently unknown whether there has been an overage to trigger an AM in a subsequent fishing year. The AMs were designed to correct for an overage of up to 20 percent. FW 48 explains that the Council would review the AMs in a future action if an overage greater than 20% occurred.
8
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
John F. Quinn, J.D., Ph.D., Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM DATE:
May 11, 2017
TO:
Groundfish Committee
FROM:
Groundfish Plan Development Team
SUBJECT:
Potential management measures for Atlantic halibut
One of the Council’s groundfish priorities for 2017 is addressing Atlantic halibut management in the upcoming framework adjustment (i.e., Framework Adjustment 57). This framework is scheduled to be initiated at the June Council meeting. In preparation, the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) met on April 11 and 12, 2017 in Portland, Maine to discuss potential changes to the management of Atlantic halibut, including modifications to accountability measures (AMs). The following summarizes the PDT’s discussion and recommendations. A. Background 1. Atlantic Halibut Stock Assessment The 2015 operational assessment for Atlantic halibut was rejected as a basis for management advice. As a result, the overfishing status of Atlantic halibut is unknown. The Peer Review Panel examined the long term exploitation history of the stock and trends in fisheries independent surveys and concluded that the stock is overfished. The Panel noted the recent increase of halibut availability to the fishery, and recommended that the overfishing limit in fishing year 2016 be based on the previous fishing year, 2015 overfishing limit (OFL) of 198 mt, further modified to include an upward adjustment for Canadian catches. The 2015 assessment report highlighted a number of data needs, including research on stock structure, improved biological data, and a more precise and accurate survey. The Panel also noted that more research was needed to investigate stock identity, and determine whether halibut should be managed in US and Canadian waters as a transboundary resource. An operational assessment for Atlantic halibut is scheduled for the September of 2017. The Council worked closely with the NEFSC to hire Paul Rago on a contract to explore data-limited assessment approaches for Atlantic halibut. Such approaches will likely use a combination of fishery dependent and fishery independent data sources to assess the relative condition of the halibut resource. Since the results of the assessment will not be known until the fall of 2017, changes to the OFL will not be possible prior to fishing year 2018. This time lag in the availability of the assessment results may also make it difficult to select preferred management alternatives in the interim.
2. Recent Atlantic Halibut Catches and Management Atlantic halibut catches (landings and discards) in US waters have been increasing in recent years (Table 1 and Figure 1). Besides federally permitted vessels in the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery, state-only permitted commercial vessels in the state of Maine are a major contributor to halibut catches. In fishing year 2010, 36.2 mt of halibut were caught, with 22.4 mt captured by federally permitted commercial groundfish vessels, and 6.6 mt caught in all state waters fisheries. In fishing year 2015, halibut catches increased to 102 mt, with 59 mt caught by the federal commercial groundfish fishery and 41.1 mt from the state waters fisheries. Atlantic halibut catches in fishing year 2015 slightly exceeded the acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 100 mt, nearly causing AMs to be triggered for the federal groundfish fishery. Table 1- Recent halibut catch estimates by fishery (mt). Source: Final fishing year-end catch reports, GARFO FY 2010-FY 2015.
Total Fishing Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
OFL Quota 119 71 130 78 143 85 164 99 180 109 198 100 210 124
ACL Catch 69 36.2 76 52.1 83 75.7 96 79.0 106 78.6 97 102.0 119
Federal Groundfish Fishery % of total Catch catch 22.4 61.9% 42.6 81.8% 60.7 80.2% 54.7 69.2% 47.8 60.8% 59.0 57.8%
State Waters % of total Catch catch 6.6 18.2% 7.1 13.6% 13.3 17.6% 22.8 28.9% 28.7 36.5% 41.1 40.3%
Figure 1- Recent halibut catches (mt) by fishery. Source: Final fishing year-end catch reports, GARFO FY 2010-FY 2015.
2
Atlantic halibut management measures for federally permitted commercial groundfish vessels were designed to minimize directed fishing effort on the stock, while also not wasting all fish through required discarding under no possession. Vessels with a Northeast Multispecies Permit are allowed to land one halibut per trip. Amendment 16 increased the minimum landing size to 41 inches (104.1 cm) from 35.8 inches (91 cm), based on updated size-at-maturity information. Because halibut are not considered a target species, they are not allocated to sectors. There is a directed halibut fishery in Maine state waters, where commercial permit holders are allowed to land up to 25 halibut between May 1 and June 30 of each calendar year. The minimum landing size is 41 inches (104.1 cm), consistent with the federal size limit. In 2016, halibut tags were issued to 858 commercial permit holders in the State of Maine. Recreational and charter vessels are issued 5 tags per year. PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed the magnitude of latent effort in the state water fishery. Since 2009, only 7-10% of the halibut tags issued by the state of Maine have been filled annually. Of the 719 harvesters that were issued halibut tags in 2015, 215 of these reported catching one or more halibut. However, given the number of permit holders in the fishery, halibut catches by the Maine state water fishery could exceed the entire US ABC for this stock if effort in the state water fishery were to increase. For example in 2016, the State of Maine potentially issued 21,450 halibut tags (an approximation from the number of permits issues multiplied by 25 tags). Assuming the average kept halibut weighs 12.5kg, vessels in the State of Maine would have harvested 134mt of halibut in 2016 if 50% of the 21,450 tags were filled. This level of harvest would have exceeded the entire 2016 U.S. halibut quota (124mt). 3. Atlantic Halibut Accountability Measures There is a concern that the recent increase in Atlantic halibut catches could cause AMs to be triggered. The federal commercial groundfish fishery (sector and common pool) is the only portion of the fishery that is held accountable for overages of the halibut ABC. The AMs do not apply to state-only permitted vessels or the other components of the halibut fishery. The AMs would restrict the ability of the federal commercial groundfish fishery to target and catch marketable species, such as haddock and winter flounder, and these AMs will likely result in adverse economic impacts to the groundfish fishery on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine. Atlantic halibut AMs are triggered when the catches exceed the ACL plus a management uncertainty buffer. The AM would be triggered in either year 2 or year 3 following the overage, with the timing of the AM dependent upon the availability of data. The AMs were designed to account for an overage of up to 20%, and the AMs would need to be revised in the future if overages greater than 20% occurred. If the AM is triggered, vessels that possess a Northeast Multispecies permit, or a Category C or D Monkfish permit would not be allowed to retain halibut for the entire fishing year. Year-round gear restricted areas are also enacted as part of the AMs. Under the AM, federally permitted multispecies trawl vessels would be required to use selective large-mesh trawl gear (e.g., haddock separator trawl, rope trawl, or Rhule trawl) that is designed to reduce flatfish bycatch when fishing in a large area adjacent to Closed Area I (Figure 2) for the entire fishing year. Gillnet and longline vessels with a Northeast Multispecies permit would be prohibited from using either gear type in two areas of the Gulf of Maine for the entire fishing year. One of these AM areas is on Stellwagen Bank, and the other is on Platts Bank (Figure 2). 3
See also Attachment 1 for a description of the draft “No Action” alternative. Figure 2- Locations of the gear restricted Atlantic halibut AM areas.
B. Considerations for Changes to the Federal Atlantic Halibut Management System PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed a number of potential modifications to Atlantic halibut management and the AMs. The PDT noted that halibut catches may increase in the near future, as recreational fishing effort may intensify, and as directed effort in the Maine state water fishery increases. The PDT also discussed the results of the Canadian stock assessment for Atlantic halibut. Atlantic halibut in Canadian waters are managed and assessed as a unit stock that encompasses the southern Grand Banks, the Scotian Shelf, and eastern Georges Bank (NAFO areas 3NOPs4VWX5Zc). The Canadian assessment estimated that Atlantic halibut biomass is currently at the highest level observed in the time series (1970-2013), and that the current exploitation rates are the lowest on record. The PDT recognized that despite recent increases in the biomass of the halibut stocks in US and Canadian waters, current biomass levels likely represent a small fraction of the historical biomass and productivity that were observed in the 1800’s. In addition, the PDT briefly reviewed published studies related to halibut stock structure, which indicate the potential for connectivity to occur between Atlantic halibut in US and Canadian waters. For example, some published studies suggest that the larger stock of halibut in Canadian waters may serve as a source of larval and juvenile halibut to the smaller US stock.
4
1. Changes to the Accountability Measures PDT Discussion: The PDT identified a number of potential changes to the AMs that could be explored, including potential changes to the triggers.
Create a “tiered” AM system, with the size of the AM area determined by the amount of the overage in a previous year. This approach would be conceptually similar to the AMs that were developed for southern and northern windowpane flounder. Make changes to the location(s) and seasonality of the AM areas. If implemented, the AMs would be in place for an entire fishing year. Seasonal, rather than year-round, gear restricted areas could be considered if halibut are less abundant in the AM areas during certain times of the year. The locations of the AMs could also be modified if data suggests alternative locations could provide benefits to the Atlantic halibut resource. Eliminate some or all of the gear restricted areas, and implement a zero possession restriction for halibut as the AM, potentially considering other fisheries/permit type. The PDT discussed a number of potential changes to the AM trigger, and will investigate the AM triggers used in other data-limited fisheries for guidance. o One idea that was discussed by the PDT was to create a biomass trigger that can be used to determine whether the AM should be in place. o For example, if the biomass trends from an empirical approach assessment indicate that stock biomass has increased in at least three of the last five years, the increase in biomass could be used as a justification to prevent the AMs from being triggered. However, the PDT noted that an informative and reliable biomass index is needed for such a trigger to be effective, and it is currently uncertain whether suitable biomass indices exist for halibut. o This is conceptually similar to the biomass criterion developed for the windowpane stocks. The PDT discussed expanding a one-fish possession limit to all Federally permitted vessels. This could further control state waters by Federally permitted vessels.
2. Changes to the Quotas Increases to the Atlantic halibut quota could reduce the potential for AMs to be triggered in future years. An operational assessment for halibut is scheduled for September of 2017, and the results of the assessment could be used as a basis to change halibut quotas for the 2018 fishing year. Future changes in the halibut quota will be dependent upon the results of the assessment, the SSC’s recommendations, and the Council’s risk policy.
5
3. Changes to the Discard Mortality Assumption PDT Discussion: It is currently assumed that the discard mortality rate of halibut is 100%, and this discard mortality rate is used for catch accounting and the halibut stock assessment. At its September 2016 meeting, the Council passed a motion requesting that NMFS revise the discard mortality estimate of halibut by using the available scientific information on the subject. Further, the Council specified that the discard mortality rate could be revised by following a process that was synonymous to the approach used by GARFO during Framework 53 rule-making to change the discard mortality rate of Gulf of Maine cod captured in the recreational fishery. The PDT noted that a large proportion of the halibut that are captured in the federal commercial groundfish fishery are discarded. For example, in 2015, 63% of the halibut captured in the federal commercial groundfish fishery were discarded. In contrast, relatively few discards are reported from the State of Maine fishery. For example, in 2015 the reported landings in the State of Maine were 42.4 mt, with only 2.0 mt of discards (discards are reported from logbook data). The PDT is exploring federal observer data on the disposition of Atlantic halibut discards. The PDT reviewed several published studies which indicate that the discard mortality rate for Atlantic halibut is less than 100%, but there was substantial variability in discard mortality estimates amongst the published studies. In general, the available research indicated that the discard mortality is greater for halibut captured using trawl gear, and lower for halibut caught using longline gear, but discard mortality in both fisheries is affected by a number of biotic and abiotic factors. The PDT noted that the State of Maine halibut fishermen fish using longline gear, and are required to use circle hooks (sizes 14/0, 15/0, or 16/0). Published studies provide evidence that circle hooks reduce discard mortality compared to conventional J hooks. The assumed discard mortality rate could be revised as part of the 2017 operational assessment, and reductions in the assumed discard mortality rate may reduce the likelihood that AMs will be triggered in future years. However it is not clear at this time whether changes in the discard mortality rate will also influence the estimates of the revised ABCs and OFLs. Reductions in the mortality rates in recent years will likely result in most of the fishing mortality coming from state waters. Mortality effects from adjustments of the trip limits will also become more influential under a lower discard mortality rate assumption. Again, the results of the 2017 operational assessment will not be known until September of 2017. 4. Invoke Section 306b of the Magnuson Stevens Act Under Section 306b of the Magnuson Steven Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to extend its jurisdiction to regulate a state water fishery if the Secretary can demonstrate that the actions, or inaction, of the state jeopardizes the success of the federal management plan. Following its January 2017 meeting, the Council wrote a letter to GARFO requesting an overview of Section 306b and requested examples of how it has been used in the past. In addition the Council wrote letters to NOAA enforcement and the United States Coast Guard requesting that they enforce the three nautical mile limit as a high priority during the Atlantic halibut season (5/1 through 6/30). The letters were sent in response to concerns raised by the commercial groundfish industry that state-only permitted vessels were targeting halibut in federal waters.
6
PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed the possibility of having the Secretary of Commerce invoke Section 306b as a means to control directed Atlantic halibut fishing by Maine state water vessels. The PDT acknowledged some potential problems associated with this approach. Firstly, invoking this option would likely lead to lengthy court proceedings. Secondly, the PDT acknowledged that this approach may deteriorate relationships between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State of Maine. Finally, the PDT recognized that because there is not an accepted stock assessment for halibut, it may be difficult to uphold Section 306b in court. 5. Changes to Atlantic Halibut Allocations PDT Discussion: The PDT discussed a number of modifications to the way Atlantic halibut are allocated to the different components of the fishery. Under the current system, a portion of the halibut ACL is set aside for catches that are expected to occur in Canadian fisheries. For the 2016 FY, it was assumed that 34 mt of Atlantic halibut would be taken in the Canadian fishery. Next, halibut are set aside to account for predicted catches in the state water fishery and the “other” fisheries. The remaining quota is allocated to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. Absent any increases to the ACL, it is unlikely that changes to the halibut allocations will be sufficient to avoid AMs from being triggered in future years. However, the PDT did briefly acknowledge the potential for the Council to consider coordinated management with the ASMFC to allocate halibut quota on a state by state basis.
7
Attachment 1: DRAFT No Action Alternative Atlantic Halibut Management- Federal No Action would maintain the existing management measures currently in place for Atlantic halibut. Minimum Fish Size The minimum size for Atlantic halibut is 41 inches (104.1 cm.), total length for all groundfish vessels (commercial, recreational - private, party, and charter). The minimum size matches the median length at maturity for female halibut in the Gulf of Maine. A18 explained that the increase in minimum size would slightly increase opportunities for additional halibut to spawn prior to capture if halibut survive discarding events. Possession Limit Commercial vessels with a Northeast multispecies permit are permitted to land one legal sized Atlantic halibut per trip. Recreational vessels are permitted to land one legal sized Atlantic halibut per trip. Reactive Accountability Measures The federal groundfish fishery (sectors and common pool vessels) are the components of the fishery held accountable for an overage of the catch limits. The accountability measures (AMs) for Atlantic halibut do not apply to state only permitted vessels and other subcomponents of the Atlantic halibut fishery. As modified by Framework Adjustment (FW) 47 and 48, the AMs for Atlantic halibut are triggered when there is an overage in the overall annual catch limit (ACL) that is greater than the uncertainty buffer in any fishing year (i.e., exceeding the acceptable biological catch, ABC). If the AM is triggered, vessels possessing a Northeast multispecies permit or vessels operating under a Category C or D limited access monkfish permit would not be allowed to retain Atlantic halibut. In addition, gear restricted areas would be triggered. Trawl vessels possessing a northeast multispecies permit must use selective gear approved by the Regional Administrator (e.g., haddock separator trawl, Rhule trawl, rope separator trawl) that reduces catch of flounders in the Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area (Figure 2). Gillnet and longline vessels possessing a Northeast multispecies permit may not fish within the Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Areas (Figure 2). The AMs would be in place for a full fishing year, starting on May 1. The AM for an Atlantic halibut catch overage could apply in the next fishing year following an overage, or in the second fishing year following an overage depending on the availability of information. For example, If NMFS made a determination that an overage occurred in FY 2016 before the FY 2017 began, then the AM could apply in FY 2017. However, if NMFS made the determination that an overage occurred during the FY2016, and reliable information was not available until after FY 2017 began, then the AM would apply to in FY 2018. If updated catch information becomes available subsequent to the implementation of an AM that indicates that an ACL was not exceeded, the AM will be rescinded. For FY 2016, it is currently unknown whether there has been an overage to trigger an AM in a subsequent fishing year. The AMs were designed to correct for an overage of up to 20 percent. FW 48 explains that the Council would review the AMs in a future action if an overage greater than 20% occurred.
8
