"... In PAGE 4: ...able 4. Summary Effect of Lower Bag Limits...........................................................................................xi Table5 .... In PAGE 11: ...inimum length for the second fish. As with Option 4, it may reduce angler demand for charter trips. However, key informant interviewees indicated that this option would likely lead to a much smaller reduction in demand than a full-season bag limit reduction. They estimated demand reductions could be about 10 percent ( Table5 ). This summary presents the no demand decline and 10 percent demand decline scenarios as high and low estimates of the potential effects of these options.... In PAGE 66: ... A minimum size limit at that length may increase total harvest weight rather than decrease total harvest weight if anglers are able to replace smaller fish with larger fish above a certain size. ADF amp;G data indicate that halibut below 32 inches account for 48 percent of the Area 2C charter catch by number and 23 percent by weight ( Table5 2). These portions are higher in the non-guided (non-charter) recreational sector.... In PAGE 67: ... ADF amp;G data from 2006 data indicate that this scenario could happen with a minimum size limit in Area 2C. As shown in Table5 3, in 2006 anglers harvested an estimated 51,474 halibut below the size limit and these fish average 9.1 pounds.... In PAGE 67: ... The average weight of replacement halibut will not have to reach the average weight of harvested halibut above 32 inches if the frequency of success is greater than one in three. For example, if slightly more than one in two halibut below the limit is replaced with just a 34-inch fish above the limit, then the total weight of halibut harvested will likely increase ( Table5 4). 11 The IPHC setline survey uses larger hooks than the charter industry standard and fishes in deeper waters.... In PAGE 70: ...verage would have stood at between 138.7 percent and 139.5 percent of the GHL instead of the estimated 142.1 percent ( Table5 5). The analysis for this option showed that second trips of the day for halibut are increasing as a percentage of overall trips, but still represent a relatively small portion of overall effort (Section 2.... In PAGE 70: ...8 and 4.2 percent of the harvest ( Table5 6). This range is inside the range of previous estimates (NPFMC, 2006).... In PAGE 70: ...ave stood at between 128.7 percent and 118.7 percent of the GHL respectively instead of the estimated 142.1 percent ( Table5 7). While key informant interviewees told us that this option would disproportionately affect lodge operators and operators who offered multi-day packages, the lodge operators interviewed for this analysis indicated that this option is preferable compared to other options.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...able 58. Summary Effect of Lower Bag Limits........................................................................................54 Table59 .... ..."

"... In PAGE 88: ...3 million in 2007 to approximately $8.54 million in 2015 ( Table5 4). Losses in ex-vessel value directly affect crew and communities dependent on the commercial fleet and the combined affect of losses from CEY reductions and increases in GHL overages are likely to affect the commercial fleet in a substantial way.... In PAGE 90: ... However, the analysis is currently unable to quantify how many anglers would be unable to find a replacement charter trip, would choose not to take halibut trip altogether, or would spend their money in another sector of the economy. As shown in Table5 5, the number of trips after the first trip of day in Area 2C is less than 3 percent of the total number of trips in the area. Thus, the overall effects would be small relative to the total expenditures related to halibut charters, but localized losses could be felt by individual businesses.... In PAGE 99: ... Federal access to these sources of information would require the following regulatory and administrative changes: (1) The State of Alaska legislature would need to amend the State confidentiality statute to allow NOAA OLE and NMFS access to confidential angler and operator information. Without this information, NOAA OLE cannot seize angler license information and logbooks for inspection and evidence, enter logbook and license data in Federal court, or perform post season audits of data to pursue violators ( Table5 6). NMFS would also need access to angler and charter operator registration and logbook information to provide the necessary program support (e.... In PAGE 99: ... (2) NOAA OLE would need to be deputized by the State of Alaska Commission of Public Safety. NOAA OLE needs the authority to inspect logbooks, angler licenses, or catch cards ( Table5 6). Without this authority, anglers and charter operators are not obligated to show their license information to a Federal enforcement officer.... ..."

"... In PAGE 47: ....4.2 Non-reproductive endocrine effects Non-reproductive effects have been reported in several fish species (Table 7b). Table7 b: Non-reproductive effects in fish effect/ disorder location species associated contaminants reference embryonic malformation in pelagic eggs North Sea coastal waters various fish species unknown Cameron et al., 1992 developmental defects in embryos western Baltic Sea various pelagic fish species unknown Westernhagen et al.... ..."

"... In PAGE 51: ...3 percent and 82.9 percent of the GHL ( Table28 ). If anglers are not successful at high grading, then the associated harvest reductions will be nearer the upper limit than the lower limit.... ..."