**CHARTER HALIBUT STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE**

**Minutes**

**Anchorage, Alaska**

**October 16 - 18, 2006**

Dr. Dave Hanson, Chair

Seth Bone

Bob Candopoulos

Ricky Gease

John Goodhand

Kathy Hansen

Kelly Hepler

Dan Hull

Larry McQuarrie

Rex Murphy

Chaco Pearman

Greg Sutter

Joe Kyle

The committee convened on Monday, October 16, 2006 at approximately 1 pm
in the North Pacific Fisheries Research Board Large Conference Room. All
members were present, except for Joe Kyle and Seth Bone (absent on
Monday).

**Status of the GHL** Doug Vincent-Lang, ADF&G, presented the status of
the 2005 and projected 2006 estimates of charter halibut harvests and
the area guideline harvest levels. The 2005 harvests had increased in
both areas. The Area 2C and Area 3A GHLs were exceeded by 36 percent and
1 percent, respectively. Two preliminary in-season estimates for 2006
were provided for review; a final estimate will be provided at the end
of the 2007 season. The Area 2C GHL was projected to be exceeded by more
than 40 percent and the Area 3A GHL was projected to be exceeded by
approximately 8 percent in 2006. Different survey methods resulted in
different average weight estimates, which drove the different estimates
of removals. An additional half million pounds caught by skipper and
crew were not counted in these estimates because those harvests were not
used to determine the GHLs. The higher 2005 and 2006 estimates reflect a
real increase in anglers and operators taking more anglers, particularly
in Area 2C.

Committee members requested harvest estimates and average weights by
port. Members noted differences in the 2006 season. Some noted that the
average weight of halibut had decreased on their boats. Southeast
operators reported increased competition from commercial setline gear,
perhaps due to the increased price of fuel. Higher winds occurred this
summer at Homer, resulting in fewer clients and more operators
chartering closer to Homer. Dave Hanson asked ADF&G staff to provide
additional data for trips and anglers to gauge what might be driving
increased harvest. At the end of the meeting, additional data were
provided, but they were not reviewed in committee.

**Five-fish Limit** Jason Gasper summarized NMFS' recommendations
regarding the Council's April GHL action to implement a 5-fish limit in
Area 2C. NMFS has requested that the Council reconsider the annual limit
after reviewing details of administrative and enforcement costs. These
include:

-   An angler specific catch record linked to multiple vessels would be
    required by the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE);

-   Federal use of the State charter logbook and angler license is the
    most cost effective and least burdensome method to enforce the
    limit;

-   Use of State logbook and angler license would require a State
    legislative change to its confidentiality statute and authorization
    from the State to allow release of data to allow enforcement of
    State regulations by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement;

-   A Federal reporting program would be required if current or future
    State recordkeeping and reporting tools, laws, or authorities
    granted to OLE do not meet OLE requirements;

-   Implementation of the annual limit would require an increase in NMFS
    staff resources or a redirection of staff from current management
    programs;

-   Enforcement of the 5-fish annual limit would require a substantial
    increase in enforcement staff or a large reduction in the time spent
    enforcing other management regulations;

-   Implementation of other management measures (e.g., charter
    moratorium program) may be slowed down because of the large amount
    of staff time required to draft regulations and implement the annual
    limit;

-   The annual limit is not expected to lower charter halibut harvest to
    the GHL and in the future, if harvest falls below the annual limit,
    removal of the regulation would require proposed and final
    rulemaking; and

-   The effectiveness of the annual limit may be undermined if the State
    does not issue an EO prohibiting the harvest of halibut by skipper
    and crew.

The Committee discussed the NMFS recommendation for the Council to
reconsider rescinding its previous action. Members noted that proposed
regulations would place an economic burden on operators for regulating
clients' annual harvests. Kevin Heck, OLE, described cost sharing
between State and Federal enforcement agencies. Congress allocated
monies to the States for enhancing fisheries enforcement. NMFS
administers the monies through a biennial joint enforcement agreement.
Most of the funds are spent on dockside enforcement. Over \$1 million is
allocated annually to the State of Alaska.

*The Charter Stakeholder Committee recognizes that the halibut charter
industry is growing more rapidly than originally projected. It believes
that the moratorium/limited entry program needs to be the highest
priority for action. The discussion paper on a five fish annual limit
raises legitimate issues. The committee is most concerned that a review
of the annual limit will slow down the moratorium/limited entry program
process. In addition, an issue not raised in the discussion paper is
that the multi-day/repeat client operator will bear the brunt of this
management tool. The committee strongly suggests that the State proceed
with legislation that allows sharing of data and cross deputizing of
NOAA OLE officers and Alaska state troopers. The committee believes that
the moratorium/limited entry program is the tool that is necessary
first.*

**Status of pending legislation** Doug Vincent-Lang summarized four
pending State legislative proposals to address charter halibut
management issues.

-   Data sharing/confidentiality issues (would allow sharing of State
    logbook data with NOAA);

-   A freshwater/saltwater charter stamp (\$5 - \$10) for guided anglers
    (aimed to fund an orderly transfer in allocation between commercial
    and charter halibut and salmon sectors). This compensated
    reallocation proposal would require a regulatory amendment to allow
    the State to hold halibut QS. Stamp revenue would be directed into a
    dedicated Fish and Game fund and could be used for halibut and/or
    salmon;

-   The State is seeking delegated authority under an amendment to the
    Halibut Act to manage the recreational halibut fisheries;

-   The State is pursuing limited entry (legislation not yet drafted)
    and will hold its own stakeholder meeting in mid-November. The
    committee was concerned that a State limited entry system could
    replace the proposed Council moratorium.

The Committee was encouraged by the State's plans to meet with charter
industry to limit effort in the charter halibut fisheries. This led to
the next report, which detailed how the Halibut Act could be amended to
allow delegation of authority to manage the recreational halibut
fishery, within guidelines recommended by the Council(s).

**Proposed Halibut Act amendment** Jay Ginter, NMFS, summarized his
paper on proposed amendment to the Halibut Act to provide authority to
State governments to manage Pacific halibut sport fisheries. Under a
proposed amendment, the Secretary could provide executive authority to
the State, after such recommendation by the appropriate Council(s). The
Council(s) would analyze alternatives to revise the halibut regulations
to provide such authorization. While NMFS is not proposing the language
itself or such an amendment, staff has provided the language for the
State to review. A 60 day advance notice is proposed to allow for review
for potential inconsistencies by NOAA, so that sufficient time is
available for the Federal government to substitute its own action. Once
the Board of Fisheries adopts an action from its "toolbox," then NMFS
would review the action for 60 days to determine if the tools are
appropriate. A joint meeting of the Council and Board could frontload
the review.

Kelly Hepler, ADF&G, reported that the State of Alaska does not intend
to seek authority for setting sector allocations; that decision would
remain with the Council. Delegation would encompass the management tools
for implementing regulations that would limit harvest to such
allocations. The committee questioned whether non-guided recreational
fisheries should be included in the delegated authority, and it was
noted that this statutory change would also affect Washington, Oregon,
and California, which do have non-guided angler allocations. The North
Pacific Council could limit its delegation of authority to only managing
the charter fishery to stay within its allocations, while the Pacific
Council may wish to delegate management of both guided and non-guided
fisheries to the States in accordance with its catch sharing plan.

The committee and staffs agreed that the Federal and State agencies
should develop a close working partnership to assure consistency of
State and Federal regulations, so that rescinding the delegation of
authority is not necessary or required. Any appeals to the Federal
government that State statutes, regulations, or actions are not
consistent with the Halibut Act must first go through NMFS
administrative review.

*The Charter Halibut Stakeholder Committee believes that state
delegation is a potentially valuable tool that would work with some of
the options of the permanent solution and the moratorium the Stakeholder
Committee and Council is working on. However, we do not support state
delegation being used as a stand alone solution in place of the
moratorium and permanent solution the Stakeholder Committee and Council
are working on. The Council needs to complete its obligation to the
charter sector and commercial sector for a long term permanent
solution.*

*The Committee recommends that any delegation of authority exclude the
allocation between sectors and that this remain the responsibility of
the Council, and that any delegation be for the charter sector only, and
that the Council retains oversight of any delegation granted to the
state.*

**Moratorium** Jane DiCosimo, NPFMC, reviewed the moratorium
alternatives and issues, as adopted by the Council in June 2006. The
Council's June motion includes committee and staff recommendations. She
reviewed staff recommendations for streamlining options. The committee
accepted staff recommendations for revising language under Alternative 2
issues and options, including clarifying comments in the footnotes.

In reviewing the moratorium discussion paper, Ms. DiCosimo pointed out
that data does not exist to differentiate between inspected and
uninspected vessels, which are referenced under Alternative 2, Issues 7
and 12. Issue 7 was intended to implement different limits on the number
of clients that may be taken charter fishing (as an endorsement to the
proposed charter moratorium limited entry permit) for inspected
(6-packs) and uninspected (larger) vessels. Specific committee
recommendations to requests for clarification by staff are identified
below.

Issue 7

> [*Given the lack of information on inspected and uninspected vessels,
> the Council will need to provide additional direction regarding how
> they want to define how many clients a vessel will be allowed to
> carry.*]{.underline} In response, the Committee recommended that
> references to inspected and uninspected vessels be deleted from Issue
> 7 and that the analysis consider setting a permit endorsement equal to
> the highest number of clients, but not less than 4. The committee
> noted that such endorsements could increase latent capacity above
> "typical" levels of clients per vessel, but would address some aspect
> of latency by not automatically granting all 6-pack permits a 6-client
> endorsement (for example, a Southeast operator that could take 6
> clients, usually took 2 clients, but occasionally took 4 clients would
> get a permit endorsement of 4 clients). That permit would have a
> permanent endorsement of 4 clients. The committee questioned whether
> to allow more clients (rods) than were used, but concluded that a
> future share-based system would still allocate a share of the fishery
> based on historical participation, except for those proposed to be
> allocated to community entities.

Issue 8

> *[The Council has been requested to state its intent regarding whether
> stacked licenses are permanently joined together, or if they can be
> separated and moved to other vessels with the characteristics they
> were initially issued.]{.underline}* The committee recommended that
> stacking of permits be allowed, and that stacked permits be separable.
> The committee concurred with the staff conclusion that stacking
> permits would reduce the number of vessels that may carry clients, but
> it would not reduce the total number of clients that could be carried.
> The committee recommended that each stacked permit must meet the
> minimum trip threshold to remain valid each year, and that a business
> may not hold more than 1 permit beyond the capacity of the vessel on
> which it will be assigned to discourage stacking and hoarding of
> permits that may be needed by the fleet. Only permits could be stacked
> and unstacked. An endorsement can not be separated from its permit.

Issue 10

-   *[The Council may wish to clarify how the minimum landing criteria
    is defined. Two options have been identified as the possible meaning
    of this option.]{.underline}*

1)  *[A permit would be issued to the business owner **for each vessel
    > that met the minimum requirement** of 1, 5, 10, or 20 bottomfish
    > logbook trips in 2004 or 2005, and participation in the year prior
    > to implementation; or]{.underline}*

2)  *[Each business that reported a minimum of 1, 5, 10 or 20 bottomfish
    > logbook trips during 2004 or 2005, and had participation in year
    > prior to implementation, would be issued a permit **for each
    > vessel they currently own and operated** during the qualifying
    > year(s).]{.underline}*

> The committee clarified that under either approach, the permit would
> be issued to "the registered business owner." The committee
> recommended a blending of the two approaches above, such that the
> business would be subject to the minimum number of bottomfish trips
> (summed for all vessels), but each individual vessel would not need to
> meet the threshold. For example, a business could have 3 vessels with
> 6, 10, and 8 trips, respectively (total trips = 24). This would result
> in the business receiving 1 permit under a 20 trip minimum; 2 permits
> under a 10 trip minimum; and 3 (only three vessels in the example so
> only 3 permits could be issued) permits under a 5 trip minimum.
>
> The committee agreed that a minimum threshold of 1 trip was too low to
> qualify a business owner into the limited entry program; however,
> there was not consensus to recommend deleting it in committee since
> that would greatly reduce the number of eligible permit holders;
> instead, the decision was deferred to the Council. It noted that its
> blended approach would result in additional permits being issued for
> vessels that were used to replace an inoperable vessel during a season
> or those used to augment its fleet during peak periods. It discussed
> whether the Council should adopt a certain trip threshold for a
> business' first vessel, and a lower threshold for each vessel beyond
> its first.
>
> Committee members expressed concern about situations in which owners
> replaced vessels during the qualifying years and that some history
> could be lost as vessels are transferred. Staff explained that the key
> to understanding the proposed limited entry program is that
> qualification accrues to the owner of the business that submitted the
> logbook, and [not]{.underline} to the vessel. Qualification for a
> permit is derived from activities of a specific vessel. The nexus is
> the logbook record of each vessel operated by a business. Once a
> permit is issued to the business that operated a vessel, the permit is
> independent of that vessel and may be used on any vessel. Therefore, a
> business owner would be granted one permit if s/he filed the minimum
> number of logbooks required for: 1) Vessel A in 2004 and year prior to
> implementation; or 2) Vessel A in 2005 and year prior to
> implementation; or 3) Vessel A in 2004 and Vessel B in the year prior
> to implementation; or 4) Vessel A in 2005 and Vessel B in the year
> prior to implementation.
>
> The committee also noted that some businesses employ replacement
> vessels (when the main vessel fails) for which businesses filed
> separate logbooks. Those businesses would earn a permit for these
> replacement vessels; those permits could later be transferred to
> another business or increase the capacity of the original business.
> This could be mitigated by applying minimum eligibility criteria to
> reduce latent capacity under Issue 10.

-   *It is assumed that the one year of ADF&G halibut/bottomfish logbook
    activity refers to the owner and not the vessel.* The committee
    concurred.

Issue 11

> *[This alternative also does not address how the minimum activity is
> calculated. For a business that owns a single vessel it is obvious.
> The vessel and the business each have the same number of trips and
> that number must be equal to or greater than the minimum number
> selected under Issue 10. However, if a business owns three vessels,
> must all three vessels meet the minimum trip requirement in Issue 10,
> or does just the business need to meet the minimum trip requirement?
> Does the trip requirement change if the permits are "stacked" as
> allowed under Issue 8?]{.underline}* The committee recommended that
> the same method for determining minimum trip activity under Issue 10
> be applied under Issue 11.

Issue 12

-   *[The Council may want to reconsider its use cap alternative
    (relative to differentiating between inspected and uninspected
    vessels) since it cannot be analyzed. If the Council elects to
    proceed with the alternative as written, NOAA Fisheries will need to
    collect vessel class information, perhaps as part of their
    permitting process, to enforce the proposed caps.]{.underline}* The
    committee recommended that references to inspected and uninspected
    vessels under Issue 12 be deleted, and that use cap options of 1, 5,
    or 10 permits be analyzed for all vessels.

-   *[Should the Council proceed with the alternative as written, the
    Council must state its intent regarding whether the use cap options
    for permits on uninspected vessels are mutually exclusive or
    additive with the use cap options for the inspected and uninspected
    (\>100gt) vessels. In other words, if Option 3 is selected for both
    types of vessels, can an owner hold 10 uninspected vessel permits
    and 3 inspected vessel permits? Or must the owner choose which type
    of vessels they want to operate and be limited by the 10 uninspected
    vessel permits or the 3 inspected vessel permits?]{.underline}* This
    point is moot under the committee recommendation to delete the
    inspected and uninspected categories.

Nicole Kimball, NPFMC, reviewed the discussion paper on community
options (Alternative 2, Issue 13). The Committee responded to questions
posed in the paper. The committee recommended that any gifted (Options 2
or 3) permits should not be transferable (i.e., sold). Permits provided
from the non-renewed pool under Option 3 would return to that pool if
unused by a community. The Committee discussed adding an option to issue
permits to only those communities with no current charter operators, in
order to minimize competition with existing businesses. However, the
committee did not recommend adding an explicit option, as it is already
included in the range to be analyzed.

The Committee made the following recommendations on Alternative 2, Issue
13, Options 1 -- 3:

Option 1

1.  • The Committee recommended that CQEs be subject to the same overall
    use caps as any other permit holder (use caps are selected in Issue
    12). The Committee also recommended eliminating the 'inspected' and
    'uninspected' permit designations, thus, the staff assumption would
    not be relevant.

> • The Committee recommended that the overall use caps for CQEs (see
> above) be inclusive of any permits purchased under Option 1 or
> received under Option 2 and/or Option 3.

Option 2

1.  • The intended beneficiary of the provision is the CQE representing
    the community; therefore, delete "on behalf of a community
    resident."

    • The language is recommended to be revised as follows: "A CQE
    representing a community, in which 5 or fewer active charter
    businesses terminated trips in each of the years 2004, 2005, and
    prior to implementation, may request a limited entry permit\..."

    • Change the definition of "active" charter business from 20 or more
    bottomfish trips to mirror the preferred alternative selected under
    Issue 10 (i.e., 1+, 5+, 10+, or 20+)

    • Apply separate use caps for gifted permits (Area 2C -- 3 permits;
    Area 3A -- 5 permits).

    • Upon verification that the CQE is qualified, NMFS would distribute
    the requested permit to the CQE, without further qualification.

    • The halibut charter permit issued to a CQE would be designated for
    the area (Area 2C or 3A) in which the community represented by the
    CQE is located.

    • The halibut charter permit issued to a CQE would be endorsed for
    six clients (i.e., 6-pack).

    • The CQE is not allowed to sell the permit.

    • Requested permits must be used within the first full season after
    receiving the permit or it is not renewed by NMFS. CQEs can re-apply
    for permits in the future.

Option 3

1.  • Amendment 66 communities that qualify under Option 3, but do not
    qualify under Option 2, [should not]{.underline} be given a higher
    priority for receiving non-renewed permits under Option 3.

> • Apply Option 2 community eligibility criteria to Option 3 (require 5
> or fewer charter businesses per community; change definition of
> 'active' business to mirror minimum activity (trips) in Issue 10,
> Option 1)**.**

2.  • A non-renewed halibut charter permit could only be issued to a CQE
    located in the IPHC area for which the permit is originally
    designated. Provide more information in analysis of potential
    communities in Area 2C that regularly charter in Area 3A and may
    want an Area 3A permit.

    • A non-renewed halibut charter permit issued to a CQE would be
    limited to 6 clients.

    • Communities that qualify under Option 3, but do not qualify under
    Option 2, [will]{.underline} be subject to the same use cap
    specified in Option 2.

    • The CQE is not allowed to sell the permit.

    • Requested permits must be used within the first full season after
    receiving the permit or it is not renewed by NMFS (permit returns to
    the 'non-renewed permit pool'). CQEs can re-apply for permits in the
    future.

**Allocation/Share-based Systems** Jane DiCosimo reviewed the Council's
June 2006 suite of alternatives and options for an allocation and
share-based system. Staff recommended reorganizing the alternatives into
separate: 1) allocation and 2) share-based systems (permit endorsements
or quota share program) actions, which could either build on or replace
the limited entry permit program in the first analysis. The committee
concurred with this approach to streamline the decision making process;
however, the committee recommended that the allocation and share-based
systems be provided in the same analysis. The committee recommended
additional streamlining of options, which are described below.

Jonathan King, NPFMC contractor, summarized a paper on six discussion
points associated with the allocation/permit endorsement alternatives.
The points included availability and quality of charter halibut data;
the committee did not provide recommendations on this topic. The
remaining five topics, and committee recommendations, are described
below.

[Alternative 2 Issue 1 - Sector Allocation Formulas]{.underline} Under
the committee's recommendation for a revised Action 2, Alternative 2 to
set an allocation between the charter and commercial sectors[^1], a
preliminary analysis using 2004 data predicted that some options would
result in the charter halibut sector receiving more allocated halibut
than they currently use. However, the 2005 data reveals that it is
unlikely that any of the allocation formulas would result in allocations
higher than current usage in Area 2C and that some of the allocation
formulas would leave industry in that sector substantially short (up to
one-third short) of current usage levels. Options 1a, 1b, and 2a would
still allocate more halibut than current usage levels in Area 3A.
However, early 2006 estimates indicate a jump in halibut consumption in
Area 3A over 2005 levels. If harvest growth continues at this elevated
pace the estimates of how long the sector in Area 3A would have "extra"
halibut would shorten.

[Alternative 2 Issue 1 - Sub-Area Allocations.]{.underline} The
committee suggested that some geographical areas are not abundant in
halibut during parts of the sportfishing season. Operators in these
areas would not have access to halibut if sub-area boundaries or
restrictions prevented them from fishing in certain areas, particularly
in Juneau.

[Alternative 2 Issue 3 -- Mechanisms to Increase Charter Sector
Allocation]{.underline}. The committee proposed a new funding mechanism
for an orderly, compensated transfer of allocation from the commercial
to the charter sector. This could be included as a variant of Option 3.
It would involve pre-season leasing of underage allocations (up to 10%
of individual allocation) by individual commercial halibut IFQ holders
to a regional association. A regional association would self-assess fees
that the State would collect.(The association administers the funds
after the Legislature directs the funds back to the association. Any
unused transferred allocation could be returned to the commercial sector
(through either: 1) a pro-rata basis to all who pledged; 2) on a "first
come/first served" basis; or 3) by lowest bid). Some preferred this
proposal to the State charter stamp, because the latter involves species
other than halibut. Economic arguments in favor of it accrue from
fishermen voluntarily pledging part of their allocations rather than an
uncompensated transfer, and the ability to forecast the need for a
reallocation to compensate those who pledge their 10%. Some members
suggested that the Council could decide to reallocate 10% of every IFQ
holding and to have the charter sector compensate them, although is
would not be expected that every QS holder would voluntarily forego
his/her 10%. This proposal is linked with Issue 2 Option 2 to allow
overages/underages to be transferred across sectors. And the regional
association model could also be applied to permanent QS transfers from
individual commercial QS holders to increase the charter sector
allocation (rather than just between commercial QS holders and
individual charter operators under a QS program).

Agency staff expressed some initial reservations with the proposal. The
underage and overage provisions of the commercial IFQ program are
intended to balance accounts by the end of the season to stay under the
quotas. Transferring underages (in total or in parts) could result in
the commercial quotas being exceeded if overages are not balanced by
underages within a year. Staff noted that a reduction in commercial
harvests will shift a greater burden on remaining landings to cover the
commercial IFQ fees; these fees will not be attached to charter harvests
under either permit endorsements or a QS program. But this shift in fee
structure would occur under any shift in allocation away from the
commercial sector. Staff suggested that it would be simpler to allow
leasing up to 10% of an individual's IFQ holding to a regional
association, although it would raise policy issues regarding leasing of
commercial IFQs.

[Alternative 2 Issue 4 - Proposed Finance Mechanisms]{.underline}. The
committee concurred with the staff recommendation to move this issue to
an appendix, since it was unlikely that the Council would select a
funding mechanism in its preferred alternative and provisions would not
be promulgated into Federal regulation. However, it viewed the options
as integral to the Council's selection of a preferred alternative. It
requested an expanded analysis of the potential role of an organization
equivalent to the regional salmon marketing associations. The committee
felt that such an organization could play an important role in the
compensated transfer of halibut between the commercial and charter
sector, noting the example self-taxing in the British Columbia sport
halibut fishery. It also requested expanded discussion of the use of the
10 percent underage used by most commercial operators as a potential
source of halibut which could be leased to the charter sector. The
committee requested a deeper discussion of the temporal aspect of
short-term/long-term leasing and permanent sales between sectors and
potential passenger stamp.

[Alternative 3 Issue 2 - Permit Classes]{.underline} The committee was
concerned about the amount of latent capacity that could remain under
some of the limited entry options that have very low thresholds (e.g.,
1); even the highest threshold of 20 trips per year is much lower than
an average charter business runs. The committee requested analysis of
the amount of latent capacity reduction that might occur under the
permit class issue. Permit classes could be dropped later in the Council
process if it is determined to be ineffective.

The committee noted that the first analysis is intended to limit new
entry and that mechanisms to reduce latent capacity would be achieved
under share-based alternatives in the second analysis. The committee
noted numerous avenues capacity could be increased under a limited entry
program: vessels could increase capacity by increasing number of
clients, hours per day and half day trips can be expanded to 2 full days
either by the initial recipient or to a second generation permit holder.
The committee noted that clients guided by full day operators typically
catch bigger fish and requested that ADF&G provide the number of
operators fishing half days by port, with a description of this
phenomenon.

Some members disagreed that increasing growth is coming from operators
with latent or infrequently used capacity, and instead much of the
growth is coming from moderately established permit holders taking 35 to
45 trips per season. Analysis of both issues would speak to the efficacy
of permit classes as a method of controlling effort.

[Alternative 3 Issue 3 - Share-Based Permit Assignments]{.underline} The
committee agreed that the angler-day option would be more effective than
a combined trips/rods option, or trips or rods singly. Therefore, it
recommended that the Council delete the rod and trip options from the
analysis and focus on angler or "client-days" as an alternative to the
QS program. The committee debated the definition of a "client day."
Several members argued that it would be better to call it a "halibut
limit opportunity" rather than an angler day. Others said that it was
important that the point at which an angler-day was "utilized" was when
"bait touched the water" even if no halibut were harvested. An earlier
trigger would result in wasted angler-days when trips became cancelled
before reaching the fishing grounds because of bad weather. The
committee noted that a half day trip is also the equivalent of one
"client day."

[Alternative 3 Issue 6 - Communities]{.underline} The committee
recommended removing all of the language under this issue, as it
pertains wholly to community eligibility. Community eligibility is
anticipated to be developed in the limited entry analysis. The committee
recognized that it is necessary to keep the issue as a placeholder at
this point, since options will need to be developed to determine how to
assign permit endorsements to permits held by CQEs under Alternative 3.
(Note that the community provisions necessary under the allocation/quota
share analysis will be better understood once the Council selects a
preferred alternative in the moratorium/limited entry analysis.)

[]{.mark}

[Alternative 4 Issue 1 -- QS recipients]{.underline} The committee
accepted staff recommendation to revise Issue 1 so that eligibility to
receive QS is linked to a limited entry permit. The committee agreed
with the staff interpretation that data tied to the original recipient;
upon transfer, would be linked to the current holder of the permit.

[Other Topics]{.underline} The committee recommended that the analysis
discuss the interplay between the unguided and charter sectors and
growth trends in the overall charter sector. The argument here was that
if charter restrictions become too onerous, it may force individuals to
the unguided sector and the amount taken by this sector would still be
taken "off the top" when the IPHC performs its annual calculations.
Thus, the permanent solution may be less than permanent if the growth in
the unguided sport sector creates similar problems to those by the
charter sector.

**Separate Accountability** Jane DiCosimo summarized the ALFA proposal
for the Council to recommend that the IPHC deduct the GHLs instead of
charter removals to calculate the commercial halibut quotas. She
identified the key points as outlined by the agencies in the April 2006
staff discussion paper. The Council is scheduled to consider the
proposal again in December 2006. The committee reaffirmed its previous
recommendation that the proposal is premature and is part of the long
term solution.

**State delegation** The committee tentatively supports delegation of
some authority for managing halibut to the State of Alaska, but has
concerns about how broad the authority might be. Specifically, the
committee recommends that allocation decisions should be reserved by the
Council. The committee further commented that it would not support
delegation of limited authority to the State if it meant that Council
action on the proposed moratorium, allocation, and share-based systems
would be discontinued.

**Subarea allocations** The State has proposed setting charter halibut
allocations by subareas. Doug Vincent-Lang distributed hand-outs at the
beginning of the meeting for committee members to review. Four major
areas are proposed by each IPHC area. In Area 2C, the four subareas are:
Northern Southeast Inside, Northern Southeast Outside, Southern
Southeast Inside, Southern Southeast Outside. In Area 3A, the four areas
are: Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and Yakutat. The intent
is that areas with less client effort and charter businesses (e.g.,
Kodiak) would not be closed down due to harvests in areas with more
client effort and charter businesses (Cook Inlet).

*The Committee has many reservations with using sub-areas, but would
like to see more text and tables on how the State would propose to use
subareas in the Council's proposed allocation and share-based systems.*
The goal would allow local solutions to local problems/issues, such as
local depletion, but it also could generate competition and conflict
between communities where there currently are none. The committee
requested that ADF&G staff provide data of businesses, vessels, anglers,
harvests by proposed subareas to determine how effort would be
allocated. The committee asked if subareas could be based on State
statistical areas.

**Next Meeting** The committee would like to convene to review the draft
moratorium analysis (tentative dates are January 29-30, 2007 in
Anchorage) as its sole agenda item.

**Staff** Jane DiCosimo, Nicole Kimball, Jay Ginter, Jason Gasper, Phil
Smith, John Lepore, Kevin Heck, Doug Vincent-Lang, Allen Bingham, Scott
Meyer, Gregg Williams, Jonathan King (Northern Economics)

**Public** Bryan Bondioli, Ed Hansen

[^1]: Alternative 2, Issue 1 in the Council's June 2006 suite of
    alternatives.