NPFMC Holds April Virtual Council Meeting

The Council held its most recent meeting via zoom, along with the AP and SSC who met a few days earlier, also via zoom.

Call for Nominations

There is a call for nominations in the Ecosystem Committee, IFQ Committee, and Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC). Please note that there are different deadlines for each committee’s vacancies.

Ecosystem Committee

The Council issued a call for nominations for a reconstituted Ecosystem Committee. At this meeting, the Council adopted a Terms of Reference for the Committee, with its purpose being to advise the Council on matters related to ecosystem-based fisheries management and climate resilience planning related to the federal fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction. The Council identified the following initial tasking for the Committee:

Inflation Reduction Act climate readiness planning and projects
Ongoing implementation of the Council’s Climate Resilience Workplan
Tracking the EFH 5-year review effort

The Council is seeking nominations from members of the public who participate in fisheries within the Council’s jurisdiction, and/or are knowledgeable about the ecosystem regions within the Council’s jurisdiction, the impacts of climate change on Alaska’s federal fisheries and communities, and environmental issues of importance to industry, Tribes, and communities. Interested members of the public should submit a letter of interest and brief resume or description of relevant experience by July 11, 2025 to the Council’s interim staff to the Committee, Diana Evans, who will compile nominations for the Chair’s consideration. Appointments may be made by the Chair over the summer, if the Council decides to convene an Ecosystem Committee meeting prior to the October Council meeting.

Staff contact is Diana Evans, pending Katie Latanich’s return to work in July 2025.

IFQ Committee

The Council issued a call for nominations for a vacant seat on the IFQ Committee. The Council is interested to appoint 1-2 new members who represent one of the following: representatives or holders of IFQ across multiple management regions, D-class quota share holders, or a Community Quota Entity (CQE) representative. Interested members of the public should submit a letter of interest and brief resume or description of relevant experience by May 30, 2025 to the Council’s staff to the Committee, Anna Henry, who will compile nominations for the Chair’s consideration.

Staff contact is Anna Henry.

Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC)

The Council is also issuing a call for nominations for a Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) vacancy, to represent crab processing. PNCIAC members must have knowledge and experience relating to the crab fisheries of the BSAI. The appointment will be for the remainder of the 2025-2026 term. Interested members of the public should submit a letter of interest and brief resume or description of relevant experience by April 30, 2025 to the Council’s staff to the Committee, Sarah Marrinan, who will compile nominations for the Chair’s consideration. The next PNCIAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for late May, as a virtual meeting.

Staff contact is Sarah Marrinan.

Area 4 Vessel Caps

The Council made final recommendations to change the vessel limitations for IFQ halibut in IPHC regulatory Area 4.

The Council selected a preferred alternative to create a new vessel limitation specific to IFQ regulatory Area 4 of five percent of the Area 4 IFQ halibut total allowable catch (TAC). Halibut IFQ held by an Area 4B CQE does not accrue towards the Area 4 vessel cap. Existing vessel caps would remain in place for other IFQ areas.

This new vessel cap in Area 4 provides additional flexibility for IFQ participants in IPHC Area 4 where fishery conditions continue to be very challenging. There are economic and logistical challenges that are unique to Area 4, including limited processing capacity– not only in the number of active processors but also in terms of having a more compressed processing season; killer whale depredation along the Bering Sea shelf edge remains a problem; and operating costs are higher in Area 4 compared to other parts of the State and continue to increase. Increasing the vessel cap for the long-term will provide some stability for fishing businesses operating in Area 4 because they can plan for the future knowing there will be an opportunity to catch additional quota on their vessels if they choose to operate in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

The Council selected a new limit of five percent of the Area 4 cap in their preferred alternative, to balance providing increased regional efficiency with the potential for additional consolidation that may occur under a less restrictive cap. While this action allows vessels that are otherwise constrained by the existing coastwide cap to harvest additional quota in Area 4, other aspects of the IFQ program that limit consolidation continue to be in place. These include the QS block program that restricts how QS can be consolidated, transfer provisions, and restrictions in the use of IFQ that help to retain the owner-operator nature of the catcher vessel fisheries and limit consolidation of QS. Only persons who were originally issued CV QS or who qualified as IFQ crew members are allowed to hold or purchase CV QS and with few exceptions, QS holders are required to be on the vessel when the QS is being fished.

The Council’s preferred alternative includes a sub-option to not count IFQ held by the CQE in Area 4B towards the Area 4 vessel cap, to further provide an incentive for vessels to fish that CQE quota. This does not change the 50,000-pound vessel limit that applies to all vessels harvesting IFQ derived from QS held by a CQE. Under this provision a vessel fishing in Area 4 could harvest non-CQE derived IFQ up to the Area 4 cap, plus an additional 50,000 lb of IFQ derived from an Area 4 CQE.

Since 2020 for Areas 4B, 4C/D and 2021 for Area 4A, the Council has requested NMFS promulgate regulations to remove vessel use caps for IFQ halibut. As a result, vessel caps do not apply to Area 4 and IFQ halibut harvested in Area 4 does not accrue to vessel caps in other Areas currently and through the 2027 IFQ fishing season. These exemptions were intended to be interim measures to provide additional flexibility to vessels in Area 4 given several years of challenging circumstances and while this longer-term regulatory response was considered. The proposed action would supersede this Area 4 exemption from the vessel caps if implemented before 2027.

Staff contact is Anna Henry.

Small Sablefish

The Council took final action to recommend a proposed management measure allowing catcher vessels in the fixed-gear IFQ/CDQ fisheries in the GOA and BSAI to carefully release small sablefish (under 22” total length). These vessels would still be required to retain sablefish 22” or longer, for which they have the appropriate IFQ. The Council’s preferred alternative also allows catcher processors fishing sablefish IFQ/CDQ to carefully release sablefish of any size. This action will align retention requirements for CPs fishing sablefish CDQ with the current regulations for CPs fishing sablefish IFQ, which allow CPs to discard sablefish of any size. The proposed action, which has been moving through the Council process since 2018, is in response to the low economic value of small sablefish which have inundated commercial catches over the past several years.

The Council recommends careful release requirements be developed for sablefish that are captured and discarded in the fixed gear IFQ and CDQ fisheries. These requirements include releasing sablefish immediately and with a minimum of injury and ensuring that observers have access to sablefish prior to discarding to collect necessary biological information and will apply to vessels fishing with either gear type, hook-and-line or pot gear.

A discard mortality rate (DMR), which will be recommended by the SSC during its annual harvest specifications process, would be used both in the sablefish stock assessment as well for inseason management of the fisheries. To account for sablefish that are not retained in the fishery, the Council’s preferred alternative includes a recommendation that NMFS establish sablefish discard allowances (SDA) as part of the annual harvest specification process and these SDAs be managed inseason. To prevent exceedances of the sablefish TAC, NMFS may prohibit discarding in the sablefish IFQ/CDQ fisheries if an area-wide sablefish discard allowance (SDA) is reached. SDAs will be combined for CVs and CPs, which could reduce the likelihood of reaching an SDA.

While the Council did not include a requirement for escape rings as part of this action, the Council continues to encourage the use of escape rings on pot gear. The Council spoke to the need for a flexible framework given the changes in this fishery, and that overly prescriptive regulations could stifle gear innovation and would require a regulatory amendment if any adjustment to these regulations were needed in the future.

The Council expects to receive information on discard amounts annually in the NMFS year-end inseason management report, and anticipates that the next scheduled IFQ Program Review will incorporate a more comprehensive review of this change to discard requirements.

Staff contact is Sara Cleaver.

MRA Adjustments

Primary tool for tracking catch
from 1985 to 2003.

The Council reviewed an initial review analysis of proposed modifications to Maximum Retainable Amount (MRA) regulations, and moved the analysis forward for final action following staff revisions. After receiving staff presentations, public testimony, and recommendations from the SSC, AP, and Enforcement Committee, the Council adopted several revisions to the purpose and need statement and alternatives. The approved changes to the action alternatives include the following:

The Council adjusted Options 4 and 5 within Alternative 2 to further clarify the original intent of these options.
The Council added Option 7 under Alternative 2, which was previously included in the Council’s June 2024 motion addressing Pacific Ocean Perch (POP) MRAs. This option would revise the definition of directed fishing for vessels participating in the pelagic trawl EM program such that vessels deploying pelagic trawl gear are directed fishing for pollock if the amount of pollock is 51-90 percent or greater of total catch. Multiple thresholds between 51 and 90 percent will be analyzed within the next version of the EA/RIR.
The Council added Methods 1 and 2 under Alternatives 3 and 4. Method 1 would allow vessels to use all basis species accumulated on the vessel when calculating MRAs for each trip regardless of fishery closures and protection areas. Method 2 would only use basis species accumulated after a change in directed fishing has occurred due to an inseason action or entering a protection area for the species that had a change in status for each trip.
The Council modified Alternative 4, so that AFA vessels would no longer be excluded from offload-to-offload MRA calculations for BSAI pollock and BS Atka mackerel.
A new Alternative 5 was added to the motion; the prior Alternative 5 was relabeled as Alternative 6. The new Alternative 5 would apply Bering Sea pollock MRA provisions to Amendment 80 vessels on an annual basis with the implementation of an incentive plan or other controls to prevent increases in average pollock catch. In alignment with FR 6492, the Alternative would establish similar measures for CDQ groups harvesting Amendment 80 species to ensure consistency with regulation of harvest statutory requirements.

The next review of the EA/RIR is tentatively scheduled for the October 2025 Council meeting.

Staff contact is Taylor Holman.

Programmatic Evaluation

Given the uncertainty regarding forthcoming changes to NMFS’ priorities, funding, and other resources, the Council paused additional work on the Programmatic Evaluation process. The Council anticipates having additional information, in June or at a future meeting, which could inform discussion regarding the need, appropriate vehicle, and process for this action. The Council highlighted that current Council efforts on climate resiliency and onramps for LKTKS should remain ongoing, regardless of progress with revision to management policies, goals, and objectives. The Council acknowledged that the Programmatic Evaluation is not a required action, and further discussion of this action will consider prioritization of this project in relation to other Council tasking.

Staff contact is Sara Cleaver.

Cost Recovery and EDRs

Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires the collection of cost recovery fees for incremental costs related to the management and enforcement of Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). NMFS provides annual reports on these costs. In response to receiving the annual NMFS Cost Recovery Report as well as a discussion paper considering changes to the timing and process for Cost Recovery, the Council provided feedback and initiated two actions.

The annual Cost Recovery Report was prepared differently this year, with additional detail included as well as providing costs across all programs in the same report. The Council members expressed appreciation for this additional effort to provide increased transparency. The Council provided a list of additional requests for NMFS and Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) to consider for future reports. For example, including more detailed descriptions of the types of violations and enforcement actions that result from incremental cost recoverable under the programs.

The Council also requested that NMFS continue to explore ways to improve the cost recovery process and timing, as highlighted in the discussion paper. The Council requested that NMFS initiate a package for changes for the Council to consider in the future. In particular, the Council requested that NMFS and NOAA OLE cease charging travel, rent, lease, utility costs, or costs associated with OLE investigations that are not incremental costs associated with a LAPP or the Community Development Quota Program.

In a second motion, the Council initiated an initial review analysis to remove Economic Data Reporting (EDR) requirements from LAPPs. Currently three EDRs exist, one for AFA participants (i.e., the Amendment 91 Chinook EDR), one for Crab Rationalization Program harvesters and processors, and one for Amendment 80 Program participants. These EDRs constitute a mandatory data reporting requirement as a part of these LAPPs and the management of these reports are subject to cost recovery. The single action alternative proposed in this analysis would consider removing these reporting requirements.

Staff contact is Sarah Marrinan.

GOA Tanner Crab Protections

The Council reviewed an expanded discussion paper on GOA Tanner crab protection measures near Kodiak Island, and initiated an analysis of proposed management measures to address.

The discussion paper contained a summary of current closures, biological information on distribution and vulnerability by life-history stage of the Tanner crab stock, and information on Tanner crab directed fishery and groundfish fisheries in the Kodiak region with a special emphasis on ADF&G statistical areas 525630 and 525702. The Council has directed staff to review the issue of groundfish fishery impacts on Tanner crab in the Kodiak region at various times, most recently in February 2024, which lead to the expanded paper and discussions at this meeting. The Council received extensive public comment representing diverse perspectives related to these two fisheries, and their relative dependency upon the statistical areas in question.

The Council motion established a purpose and need statement and a suite of alternatives for analysis. The alternatives to be analyzed include new seasonal and/or year-round closures on the east side of Kodiak as well as reconsideration of existing crab closure areas. The two new closure options are statistical area 525702 and a smaller closure on the east side of Kodiak (north of 56 degrees 54.6 minutes latitude and 152 degrees 16 minutes longitude). These areas have been identified as having consistently high densities and abundances of Tanner crab and closure of these areas may minimize groundfish fishery interactions with Tanner crab. The timing of the closures is intended to reduce potential adverse fishing gear impacts such as damage to crab during vulnerable time frames for molting and mating. The Council intends to establish criteria and a timeline to review the effectiveness of the new closure areas.

The Council motion also contains an alternative to evaluate the existing Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area and all Type I, II, and III closures around Kodiak Island, for modification or removal. Information in the discussion paper indicates that most of these closures contain little to no Tanner or Red King Crab thus their efficacy as a protection measure should be assessed.

Staff contact is Diana Stram.

Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Surveys

The SSC reviewed several Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) survey-related aspects including the existing AFSC organizational structure, current fishery resource and ecosystem surveys, their spatial coverage and frequency, and the current AFSC modernization efforts and prioritization of surveys, and survey impacts to data streams. Following extensive discussion, the SSC acknowledged the high degree of uncertainty in future federal funding for surveys, and the loss of staff and expertise that has already occurred in 2025, and emphasized that both will have substantive impacts on the information and data produced from the AFSC surveys that inform federal fisheries management in the North Pacific. A core set of surveys were identified, including bottom trawl surveys in the EBS, GOA, and the AI, acoustic surveys in the EBS and Shelikof Strait, and the longline survey, which are essential to support the stock assessments that underpin sustainable fisheries management in the North Pacific. Additional suggestions for consideration of data streams and potential impacts on assessments are contained in the SSC minutes. The AFSC will continue to update the SSC and the Council on developing plans for 2025 surveys and ongoing survey modernization efforts as information to support these funding and planning decisions become available. The Council requested staff write a letter to the agency reiterating Council support for Federal employees and for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and the Council’s reliance on core surveys and fishing regulations as a means to ensure continued domestic seafood production and economic growth.

Staff contact is Diana Stram.

Staff Tasking / Reports

The Council discussed the relative priority and scheduling of previously tasked projects and identified new tasking. The revised 3 meeting outlook reflects this guidance.

Following review of the reports and staff tasking materials, the Council took the following actions:

Advisory Groups

Adopted Terms of Reference for the Enforcement, IFQ, and reconstituted Ecosystem Committees
Noticed the public of upcoming Council advisory group meetings (see Upcoming meetings newsletter article) and approved draft agendas
Issued a call for nominations for the Ecosystem Committee and a vacant IFQ seat
Made appointments to the FMAC, PCFMAC, IFQ, and Charter Halibut Management Committees (see separate newsletter article)

Letters / recommendations

Requested staff write a letter to the Secretary of Commerce and NMFS Assistant Administrator reiterating Council support for Federal employees and for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, our reliance on core surveys and fishing regulations as a means to ensure continued domestic seafood production and economic growth.
Requested staff write a letter to the IPHC requesting information on the degree to which localized depletion in the St. Matthew area is occurring, and whether it represents a conservation concern for halibut.
Regarding the chum salmon excluder exempted fishing permit (EFP) under agency consideration, recommended particular stipulations should NMFS issue the EFP.

New action

The Council initiated a feasibility discussion paper to inform potential alternatives for analysis for establishing a tribal salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This initial paper will evaluate the relative authorities under the Magnuson Stevens Act and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act authority to determine eligibility for participation in the fishery and issuance of permits. This fishery was requested by the Tikahtnu Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, after exploring the proposal with NMFS Regional Office staff.
The Council requested NMFS take action to align the time of day openings and closures for sablefish directed fishing with the fishing period that is set annually by the IPHC for halibut season, using their existing rulemaking authority. If that is not permitted, the Council requested that the issue be brought back to the Council for regulatory amendment.

Staff contact is Diana Evans.

Appointments

The Council Chair made the following appointments to Council committees:

Charter Halibut Management Committee: Chance Miller and Adrianne Swan
IFQ Committee: Casey Campbell
FMAC: Jack Meyers
PCFMAC: Cristian Martinez

The Council also called for nominations for the IFQ Committee and a reconstituted Ecosystem Committee (see separate newsletter articles.)

Upcoming Meetings

BSAI Crab Plan Team

May 14-16, 2025; Virtual
Draft agenda: Aleutian Island golden king crab SAFE chapter; ESP and risk table discussions; proposed model runs for fall assessments, and other modeling updates; survey and BSFRF updates

Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee (FMAC)

May 12, 2025; Virtual
Draft agenda: review of the 2024 Observer Annual report; NMFS updates, including budget; discuss implementation of EM in CGOA rockfish shoreside program proposal

Enforcement Committee (T)

If scheduled, meeting will occur end May 2025; Virtual
Draft agenda: recommendations on pelagic gear definition analysis

PNCIAC (T)

If scheduled, meeting will occur end May 2025; Virtual
Draft agenda: recommendations on crab arbitration analysis

NPFMC

Newsletter

Contact Us