Alaska Peninsula / Aleutian Island / Chignik Finfish (2/23/2026)

All right. Good morning, everybody. The time is 9:17. Thanks for your patience. As per usual, we have a little flurry of some RC activity.

We wanted to make sure we got out for this group's deliberation. So we're going to go ahead and begin this morning with deliberations on Group 1, which is Chignik Area Salmon, which is 5 proposals. I think Jared had some— I was just going to remind about the RC page limit dropping. Okay. I just wanted, Madam Chair, just wanted to remind the public that now that we're beginning deliberations in this meeting, the page limit for all RCs drops to 5.

Thank you. Mr. Godfrey. Madam Chair, an RC came in yesterday, RC139, that I need that I believe needs to be addressed prior to deliberations. It involves Board Member Chamberlain's comments in response to a question from Board Member Carpenter about his advocacy in either professional or personal capacity. And, um, while I was not aware of the instances that are cited in RC 139, it certainly seems as though what Board member Chamberlain's response to Carpenter were actually inaccurate statement when he said he never advocated both in the public or in the private capacity.

And I think that we need to address that on the record before deliberations.

Thanks, Mr. Godfrey. Member Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. My statements to Mr. Member Carpenter were correct when he asked if I have ever advocated for the closure of the REM.

Fishery, my answer was no and it still remains no. The Senate hearing— the Senate Committee testimony I referenced in RC 39 was one that did cover for— was one that did— was the topic of the legislation was limiting time in REM. However, I appeared as a fact witness. I did not advocate for or against The closure of area M, I provided testimony as to the impact of the salmon closures on the Yukon and Kuskokwim area, and I also spoke to the ability of the, of the Aleutian Peninsula to withstand anything on that area. But at no point in time did I ever advocate for or against closure of the area M fishery.

So my— I stand by my statements. Thank you, Mr. Godfrey. So, and I'm going to take what's put in RC139 at face value. I didn't research the quotes. I certainly doubt anyone manufactured the testimony, but there's 7 instances over the course of less than a year, both 'I don't know what you were doing' in your AFN capacity, if that was professional, personal, but quotations are cited here as well.

And I have a hard time reading this, these statements from you in various public forums and view that as not being advocacy for the closure of Area M. And maybe I'm the only one, maybe other board members would chime in, but my concern here is the It's of paramount importance that the public have faith in the board's process, its objectivity and transparency. And that's clearly come up in a lot of public testimony throughout this meeting where people question that or don't believe it exists. And on its face, this certainly looks to me like you advocated professionally and personally for the closure of Area M and for the integrity of the board and our process. If we're having a misunderstanding of what it means to advocate and we just have a difference of opinion, you know, I can respect that. But I'd like to hear if any other board members view this the way I do, and maybe I'm the only one.

Member Godfrey, I'm just going to give you some of my thoughts on this before we get too far down this road. So as I read 139, all of the instances that are cited in that are C, are prior to the service on the board. It is prior to appointment. It is prior to his confirmation.

And as such, I think I went through that criteria and noted in both.

'94 AG opinion and in the 2003 AG opinion that people are entitled to their opinions prior to their service on the board. If we were going back and mining everybody's statements, every member of this board's statements or any board's statements prior to their service, I think you would find lots of statements that are made one way or the other. And, you know, this is supposed to be a board made up of, you know, people who have participated in the various fisheries and are seen as experts as such, you know, from their own personal and professional lenses. So that's the, that's the lens that I'm looking at it through. And I, you know, that's, that's where I'm at.

Mr. Godfrey, you know, and I can totally respect that, Madam Chair, and I don't disagree with you from that perspective. But I will read into the record the question from Board Member Carpenter. I'm going to ask one final question, and this is specific to either in your personal capacity or in professional capacity. Have you ever advocated in either one of those situations the legislative session or through public forum to advocate for the closing of Area M fisheries in general? And quote, irrespective.

There was no— there was no qualification in that question from him during your time on the appointment of the board. So he answered in the negative that he didn't. But Board Member Carpenter didn't qualify it by saying since you've been on the board.

I'm not sure if that materially changes the chair's ruling. I would suggest it doesn't. Based on those Attorney General opinions, but we can, you know, board can talk about it if they'd like. You know, we're past the point of reconsideration on votes. Okay, well, if no other board members have any comments or any statements or opinions on this, that's fine.

My concern is moving forward here is, you know, again, that the board do everything above board as much as best as it possibly can for the integrity of it, but also to insulate ourselves from litigation and the outcome of any, any votes here that could lead to an injunction because a finding would be different by a court.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I guess I'll just reiterate my biggest concern would be spending all of this time and energy that on our behalf and other people's behalf to ultimately have this avoidable. And as it says in 39.52430, that is a possibility. If there is a— if there does end up being a conflict.

And I have to say that like prior to my Cook Inlet meeting, there was 2 months worth of preparation to find out what I might have a conflict with or without. And I was not willing to fight my way into a barroom brawl. Like I didn't want to— push against the system by doing something illegal or voidable. And I just think it's important— if, if, if Member Chamberlain feels that he genuinely will not put us in that position, I am more than willing to go along with your ruling. But, but that is my biggest fear.

Member Chamberlain, I do not feel that I will put us in that position. The other thing is, and I would just add, that that exists in any meeting at any time. I mean, especially when there are, you know, questions of conflict of interest, financial or personal, whatever, at any time a stakeholder group could choose to litigate. So that exists. That risk exists, I think, in most meetings, as it did 3 years ago and as it did on 282.

Mr. Carpenter. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER CARPENTER] Yeah, thank you. I think this is a worthwhile discussion. I think the public— is owed that. And so I appreciate Mr.

Godfrey bringing it up. When I asked the question, it was in context of many other questions that I had asked Mr. Chamberlain before that. And I was— it wasn't a gotcha question. It was kind of built on the line of the same questions that I had previously asked.

And quite frankly, I was a little surprised when he said no. Irregardless of who was before he was on the board or after. And I was trying to make the point basically that in my opinion, there's a double standard when it comes to the ethics policy. And I think permit holders are held to a very high standard. And it's become very common on the board, especially in the last 10 years, that there are very professional people in very prominent positions that sit on these boards that are highly compensated.

And I think— I guess my point really was, was I think that the legislature needs to look at this because I think this is only going to continue to get worst— worse. So that's all I really have to say on that. And, um, but I appreciate it being brought up. Likewise, thank you, Member Carpenter, Member Wood, and Member Godfrey, also Member Chamberlain. I would, I would love to see the legislature give us more guidance, you know, thresholds or whatever, some sort of metric that we can easily measure against consistently.

All right. Anything else? Okay, let's get into deliberations of Committee of the Whole Group 1.

The first Next proposal is proposal number 108. 108, Please. For the record, Carl Burnside, Juneau Area Management Biologist. Proposal 108, 5AAC15.357, Juneau Area Salmon Management Plan. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second.

Staff comments, please.

This would amend the Juneau Area Salmon Management Plan to remove the option to open the Western and Perryville districts, excluding the inner Castle Cape subsection of the Western District, from June 1 through July 5. This would reduce the total area able to be open to commercial fishing in the CMA from June 1st through July 5th, concentrating fishing into the Eastern, Central, and Chignik Bay districts, as well as the inner Castle Cape subsection of the Western District. Concentrating fishing effort into more terminal districts may reduce harvest of mixed stock fish and may increase harvest of Chignik River system-bound fish. Because fishing periods during this time are based on Chignik sockeye salmon escapement, this may increase the amount of time where no commercial fishing is occurring in the CMA, potentially reducing overall CMA harvest. The department is neutral on this proposal.

The department supports efforts to conserve Chignik River king salmon and non-local king intercepted in the CMA. However, king salmon harvest in this area during this time frame has historically been low, and it is unclear how displacement of fishers would affect king salmon harvest. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in an additional direct cost for a private person or for the department.

More discussion?

Any more discussion? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. In learning about this area, it's interesting to, to learn about, like, there is a terminal fishery in Chignik Lagoon, and, uh, but you're then also battling for the fish out on the Capes coming in and into that area. I can see how this— why this proposal would be put out there, hoping to get more fish back into the lagoon rather than being intercepted out on the Cape, I guess.

But for that reason, it does seem like it is, you know, allocative. However, it doesn't seem like the harvest out there really kind of justifies— the harvest that's being done out there justifies it, especially when The numbers that are coming in and what is being caught in the lagoon itself appear to be a good effort in sharing. So I'll leave it at that for now.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Carl. Can you maybe talk about the time frame? That's in this proposal, and I don't know, it's going to vary from year to year in regards to effort.

And maybe describe the catch that is going to happen in this particular area, maybe just a little bit.

Sure. Through the Chair Carpenter. Yeah, so this is June 1st through July 5th, meaning it's basically entirely dependent on early-run sake. Which means recently especially, it doesn't get open until there's enough early-run escapement. So in the last decade or so, there's been very little participation out there.

It's prior to any— mostly prior to king restrictions, so the lagoon is able to be freely open during this time period.

Within the last year is the most harvest we've seen, and during this time frame, they caught 6,000 or so sockeye, 1,500 chum, 1,300 pinks, and that's about it. The last time there was any significant harvest was prior to 2017 in the western— Perryville has never, despite being open recently, nobody has ever decided to fish during this time frame in Perryville. So, so far only the western district has seen fishing then. Okay, maybe just a quick follow-up to that. So it's going to happen eventually, these runs are going to build to the point to where— is this going to be a limiting factor when early-run sockeye escapement is good and you need to control harvest, let's say, is this going to hamstring you as a manager?

Through the chair, if there is a large enough run, it.

Potentially could.

It would have to be a pretty significant size run, I think, for it to significantly hamstring our ability to prevent excrement beyond the upper bounds, though. Really, mostly force people into the Central District or maybe Eastern. So, okay, thanks. Mr. Godfrey. As I recall, nobody— no one spoke on this proposal during Committee of the Whole.

And usually that's helpful for me at times when I'm not sure which way I'm going to go on a proposal. The department was neutral. That's typically helpful for me to know if they oppose or support one. So that didn't help. And so I checked down to the ACs and there was 4 ACs in opposition, multiple other associations in opposition, and 1 AC in support of it without any compelling argument otherwise.

I'll be opposed to this.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the board's deliberation discussion, I believe the matrix is incorrect on Chignik AC's comments. I flipped to AC 3 in our binders, and from the discussion and the notes, unless there has been new information cited, which I don't see any RCs or anything, it does say that the Chignik AC supported this 10 in favor, 1 in opposition. So I just wanted to note that for the board's discussion.

Other board discussion? I don't know. I mean, I could kind of go either way on this one, frankly. Like, in my experience, it was not— and then granted, this was from like '92 to 2006 or somewhere around there. I don't remember exactly when I was fishing in Chignik.

It wasn't common in June for people to use the western area that much anyways. Usually the bulk of the early run fishing, or early season fishing I should say, was in the central district and maybe in the eastern districts. I mean, for some reason that has shifted in more recent years. I don't know why that is. Perhaps you could explain that to me, Carl.

Yeah, Ms. VanDort. So prior to 2008, it couldn't be opened. It was in 2008 that a proposal was adopted that allowed the Perryville District to be— or sorry, the Western District to be open to, I believe, up to 3 48-hour periods during this time frame. And then in 2019, you guys adopted a proposal that allowed the Western District to be open, maybe opened alongside Central and Chignik Bay for that entire time. And Perryville currently is up to 3 48-hour periods.

But prior to 2008, it wasn't an option. This would basically be going back to what it was like prior to 2008. Thank you for that. And as I read the proposal and the justification for the proposal, I think what I'm seeing and reading between the lines here— and I'm looking for some of the RCs that support that maybe— is sort of a recognition that sometimes in those west— in that Western District and Perryville District there can be mixed stock. It's a little bit farther out.

We know that fish are moving through there, through the Schumagins, and I think that this is attempting to be a recognition that there may be some, albeit moderate, impact on transiting stocks, whether they're heading east, but most particularly west and north. So I think that's the justification as I read it for the proposal. How impactful that would be right now considering the fleet versus whether or not that is an opportunity to target sockeye out there. I don't know. I guess from my perspective, the only sort of real benefit is that it has the potential to spread the fleet out a little bit.

So I'm kind of six of one, half a dozen of another on this. I recognize it. I would probably be inclined to not vote for it except for the fact that the local AC and the Intertribal Coalition and some of the local permit holders are in favor of it. So I'm sort of neutral on it at this point. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So Carl, if this were to happen and you were to force people that typically might fish out there into different areas. I mean, what's the potential impact on king salmon specifically regarding— I mean, we are in a staff concern. I mean, is that— do you think that the— that more boats being pushed out of this much bigger area could have a potential impact on that? Through the chair, Carpenter, it would push people towards the central district and maybe even the Chignik Bay District, which specifically towards the end of June, early July, could potentially increase the amount of local kings harvested.

Okay, thanks. How large is the Central District?

That's a good question. Larger than the Western District, I think, in total area. Yeah. So there's a lot of places, I think, for boats to spread out in the Central District too. So, you know, it's not like they're all congregating near the mouth of the lagoon.

Just outside of the lagoon is a fact. In my experience, it's not hardly anybody fishes outside of the lagoon. They nearest in they would go is maybe Hook Bay or somewhere in farther out in the Central District. And for folks is kind of gauge on how far away that is from Chignik, it's about a 2 plus-hour boat ride depending on the weather. Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Wood.

So is this— the way this is written, it gives you the option to open it, correct? Is that how I'm reading that? Through the chair, no, it removes the option to open it. Or—.

Okay.

Okay, I understand that now. So, but would you open it, uh, with the thought of these Kings if you had the choice? Um, I have been choosing to open it alongside the Chicagoland Central Districts. Um, yes.

Okay, thank you. Um, from the department's perspective, do they have any idea where the Kings are transiting from headed towards Chignik in June. Do you have any knowledge of which direction they're coming from, if there would be a king saving, you know, for keeping these two areas closed early in the season?

Madam Chair, we don't have any hard information on if they're coming from the east or the west. King, thanks. So basically all we have to look at is that early June season. Western District King harvest? What's that been in the last couple of years?

During this time frame, zero. Okay. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I guess that answers my question.

Both—. I'm gonna tag on to Member Swenson's question as well, but with the stock of concern for sockeye and kings, just what is the impact of this area? And it— I've got the picture now. So, but you could answer that. Does it help you when you're deciding whether to use it or not?

Does it have an impact on the management given the stock of concerns?

Through the Chair, Ms. Wood, no, I don't think this ties very closely to either stock of concern. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department, I'd call the question. The question has been called. Any errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 108. Godfrey. No. Wood.

No. Chamberlain. No. Irwin. No.

Carpenter. No. Swenson.

No. Carlson VanDort. No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 110. Proposal number 110, 5AAC 15.332, same specifications and operations. Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 110 with substitute language found in RC 164. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the Board has before it substitute language in RC 164 in lieu of the original proposal.

Staff comments, please.

This would reduce the maximum depth for commercial seine gear from 375 meshes to 325 meshes. That would not include chafing gear in the case of this RC. Reducing net depth may reduce gear effectiveness for vessels that predominantly fish outside the Chignik Bay District. The department has no specific information on species composition or migration patterns by depth throughout the CMA, so it is unknown exactly how this change would impact harvest rates or composition by species. Overall, commercial harvest could decrease due to less effective gear.

This change is unlikely to impact harvest within the Chicknick Bay District where most nets in current use are typically shallower than the current proposed maximum mesh count. Incorporating lead length into aggregate seine lead length— or sorry, this would remove leads, so that is irrelevant.

The department is neutral on this proposal.

Mr. Wood, would you like to speak to your amendment? Mr. Carpenter?

Yes, I'll start. Yeah, for sure. Okay, because this applies in a couple places. I have, in the process of fishing over my lifetime, thought a lot about nets and net depths. And living in Upper Cook Inlet, it's been a big part of my thought process.

And it's always been to avoid kings in my brain. And living through the whole— just so it's been a learning experience. What this proposal does by making it a shallower net, and I think we got to use the right terminology here, and it's not a shorter net. Shorter would mean this way. It's shallower this way.

So if we could all be on the same page with that one, would be good. It's making it shallower by 50 meshes. However, I think it will end up needing to go from 325 to 335 because it— because of a border strip at the top. But we can discuss that later. I think this was asked for by the people in Chignik.

And what I have found throughout looking at fisheries throughout the state, adjusting the depth of your net could potentially protect other species. And I've looked for information out there to help support this idea, and, and I, and in the process I've learned a lot because I think there's a big difference on how you fish, where you fish, the depth of your net, and how shallow you're fishing. Even the tides. I looked for some scientific information out there, which I put out in RC142. All that information was collected through trawling, which I think is one piece of information.

But then there's another piece of information out there that we don't have, which is what do fish do when they're netted? Do they dive? Are they just lower? When they see the net, do they go down? It's hard to say.

I don't think there's any quantifiable way to say you're going to catch fewer fish. But so I've had to rely a lot on fishermen. Do you catch more or less with a shallower net? And it makes sense that if you have less net, you catch less fish. That's kind of a no-brainer.

At the same time, do you catch— do you not target fish that you want to let go by? And I think in this case, where we're at at this period of time in history in the state of Alaska, when you get a stock of concern in the Nushagak and Kodiak and Chignik and Cook Inlet, whatever we can do to avoid fish that are swimming deeper is important right now, to let them go by. And that's why I believe that shallowing this up to this depth is important to do. I know it's apples and oranges to compare a set net with incoming tide that's moving super fast and flags like crazy to a seine net. And I have been taught by the fishermen out there the difference.

And hopefully, I want everyone to know I respect you and I respect that information big time.

I would like to— you to know that this is hard for me to do because— but I think it is an important conservation measure. Getting rid of the leads was just more web in the water. It was more way to direct fish, and there's not a lot of people using them anymore. So for that reason, I feel it's important to do this. I also want to say it also there are only a few places in Alaska where the depths are what they are.

I mean, in Southeast, they're a little bit deeper, and maybe we'll need to look at that as time goes on. But in my mind, it's been a way to conserve kings in particular.

So with that thought, I, that's the kind of the spirit in which I put this forward. And I think it'll help. And I have listened to folks and I'm open to any questions. And if I can't answer them, I'll ask the fishermen. I need you, Mr. Irwin.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Member Wood, for bringing the language forward and for speaking with some of the public in order to make this happen. My question is just on— I'm trying to understand a little bit more about the chafing gear. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of this gear type. So could you just explain a little bit how you got to the 25 meshes of chafing gear and the maximum mesh size of 7 inches?

Is that just consistent with regulatory language elsewhere in the state? Okay, I'm not a seine fisherman, I'm a setnetter. So, um, but what I've learned is this, um, it's like being a carpenter. A 2x4 really isn't a 2x4, right? It's inch and a half by 3 and a half.

So when you throw out these numbers like Net comes in 150 and 25-foot bundles. And then, so to make a net, you sew all that together. And in this case, it's not as simple as just cutting off 50 feet. Because the way the net is built, there's like 25 down low, then these other panels in the middle, and then another 25 near the top or something like that. So this is an incredibly expensive process on the fishermen to have to go cut these panels out.

And the way they're fished is there is a chafing gear at the bottom, and there's— if I get this wrong, but please correct me— but then there's this border strip at the top that is more durable. It's not, not catching fish, it's just there to run through the block. And so I didn't know that, and nor was it pointed out to me, but I think this has actually been a discussion within, uh, at Board of Fish in the past, which we have record of. On already. So I refer to the department on that.

They can clean up my lame explanation here. But anyhow, if you look in Cook Inlet, that's why it's 335. And in Prince William Sound, it's 335. And actually Kodiak is kind of a holdout at 325. And I suspect at some point that'll have to be adjusted.

So, Mr. Carpenter, thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the language found in RC 164 to strike the number 325 meshes and that number to be 335 meshes.

Second. And ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objections, so moved. If I could speak to the amendment real quick. Yes, this is a— you know, if you look around the state, there's different regulations, but consistently Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet specifically have this 335 in regulation.

This is not changing the effect of catching power. This is more a function of, A, this chafing or this border strip is typically hung on the corkline. So when you have to replace web, you can take the lace off, you can change the web, and you don't have to rehang your corkline. So that's one part. The other part of it is, is when you're running your gear through the block, there is an impact on the gear that way.

And this is typically thicker material, which kind of helps protect your sane. So it's nothing more than that.

Mr. Wood. Thank you. I'd also like to just add that what I've heard from people at— what I understand is you, because there's less web, you will catch less fish, and there's less holding power because of the size of the net in really stormy waters. So therefore, it's possible you could end up losing some days fishing even because of the reduced web. That in the end is, I guess, the trade-off.

The fish will win and the fishermen won't. But I guess one thing that could end up happening that is unforeseen is potentially more sets to get more fish. And I think there's no way to really know how this will work. So it's— I wish I could answer that question before this was thrown out, but I can't figure out a way to do that.

Mr. Godfrey. I'm inclined to oppose this, but I'm not strongly inclined to oppose it. I'm essentially deferring to some of the comments by the stakeholders that would be impacted, but the reason I'm inclined to oppose it is the lack of certitude in what the outcomes would be here for the expense borne on the stakeholders.

If there was a little bit more certainty as to the net benefit of this, you know, I could easily be swayed, but I just haven't heard that or seen that thus far. So I'm a soft no.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

This is kind of a tough one, but actually not for me. I'm very experienced in this particular arena, commercial fishing. Been on seine boats a lot. And when I hear the discussion being brought forward.

Specific to restricting gear, in my mind, there needs to be a quantifiable way to figure out if that's productive or not. And I listened to public testimony. There were differing opinions on that. But the one continuous thing that I heard were maybe, probably, might happen, could be. And for the board to change a regulation that is going to be so impactful with the complete misunderstanding of what the net effect could be.

I think the board needs to really think about that because there is— there's really no evidence at all that this is going to work. Now, I'm all for conservation when it comes to king salmon and catching fish that are bound for other areas. And we are going to deal with this not only in this area but in Area M as well. I have a lot more to say on the next proposal, but I just— I need a metric, and there is no metric. And so for that reason, I just can't support it.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I don't disagree with you on much of what you said. However, we make decisions all the time where there are no metrics. And we don't have any evidence per se that says that this will work. But we also don't have any evidence to say that it won't.

And we have at least nothing that I have seen that is particularly compelling, nothing that has been brought forth to me in the RCs.

We have King problems all over the state. This is, I think, an unusual circumstance where the fleet has come forward And I just kind of glanced through the pros and cons in the index of public comments here, and I saw only one name in all of the cons that was a local— I wouldn't say local, but that fished in the CMA that I was aware of, with the exception of two, maybe.

But we've got the Chignik AC, the CIC representative of the Five Villages in the subregion, amongst— and also sort of a cross-section of permit holders that I'm aware of that are local, local Alaskans, and then also non-Alaskans. So that's a pretty good cross-section of the fleet for those that weighed in anyways. And I think what you're seeing here is a recognition that they want to conserve their kings, and I think they're seeing a recognition of the responsibility they feel to do what they can, and they're willing to absorb the cost. To do so.

That is extraordinary. I don't see that very often at this table.

And I don't know why the board wouldn't support those efforts.

I think we have heard conflicting statements about the cost. I personally don't believe it is necessary to ship a sane to Seattle to take out 25 meshes. But that is the kind of gear work I used to do 25 years ago. Maybe things have changed significantly because I am old now. But I just— it strikes me as strange when you have the people in the permit holders in that area asking to try and do experimentation with gear to try and conserve stocks that they have problems with, particularly Chinook, and also to mitigate unintended harvests of non-local Chinook and chum.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I like what I likewise— I'm going to be supporting this. I find it compelling when a user group seeks to self-impose a regulation that is going to cost them some money, take some effort out, and limit their fishing opportunity for the sake of preserving Chinook. I— if you're willing to do that, I'm willing to go along with it.

I think it speaks a lot for a local group to forego potential harvest and costs and take efforts for that purpose. I felt that during public testimony and discussion of this, I felt that there was a far more compelling argument that this does conserve kings than against. I saw a lot of the opposition to this coming from actually outside of the group because they're outside of this area. So with that said, I'll be supporting this one. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I just like to speak to that a little bit. There is this just one user group's proposal. I don't— there's no consensus, I think, on this, that, that all user groups support this, especially in the seine fleet. Nets have decreased in size in the past to accommodate conservation.

In the case of setnets and drift in Cook Inlet, we decided that the depth is of such importance that we have taken the nets out of the water. In the Nushagak, when we drift, we take into consideration tide and the height of the tide before we open the opener so that the fish can go under the nets.

In the Yukon River, when they had a drift fishery in the Yukon, they knew that the deeper nets caught more kings in the middle of the river. So I mean, fishermen understand where the fish are and how to get them, and I think that's why I put this forward. It will catch less fish, and, uh, ultimately it'll catch less fish and there'll be less fishing opportunity. This is a huge hit to fishermen. Out there.

And I hope it doesn't have any unexpected consequences, but I think, um, we'll hear more. But I think it's the appropriate thing to do at this point in time in history for conservation, especially for kings, especially in the middle of an area that is in the middle of all these other areas of concern for stocks of return that are trying to return. And, and just the mixed, um, mixed in terms of genetics, where these fish are coming and going from. So for that reason, that's why I brought this forward. I know it's not easy for people.

Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Owen. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the board's discussion. I'm feeling pretty similar to some of my other board members that are looking at the local fleet, asking for conservation measures to be taken and doing that already on their own.

And so I think it's admirable. And I think that this board should continue to support efforts efforts to conserve in a time in which our populations throughout the state are, are depleting. Um, I guess I just had one more question actually for Mr. Wood. The purpose of, uh, the beginning in 2027, is that simply to give fishermen some time in order to fix their nets and give them a slight like transition period before this goes into regulation? Yeah, 100%, especially because of where they live.

I think, I mean, this is already going to be a massive imposition. To an expense. And so I think giving them a year lag is very important to do. So that's why I threw that in there.

Commissioner? Yeah, from a department perspective, we got king conservation concerns all across the Gulf of Alaska. And clearly, we are trying to find the right balance in providing opportunity for other species and protecting weak stocks. Is there definitive data to, to say that this is going to protect king stocks? Probably not.

But certainly, I think Board Member Wood said it correctly. You know, this is the time to try to keep trying to keep gear in the water with gear modifications so that we can try to keep those strong stocks harvest potential strong, but yet protect those weak stocks. So Gear modifications are something I'm very interested in trying to pursue because it keeps gear in the water for those fishermen that can continue to catch sockeye. The alternative is just close those fisheries or restrict them in time and area.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I guess before I read the cost, I mean, I can read the tea leaves pretty well. I'll just make this statement to Mr. Wood specifically.

He said he talked to a bunch of fishermen and that's where he kind of derived his information. Information was in regards to catching power. I never heard one person come before this board during Committee of the Whole or in public testimony that I knew was a fisherman that said that. And so it's kind of surprising to me that of all these people in the room, that if that were the case, that somebody wouldn't have said something.

But to your point about the people of Chignik putting this in and then restricting themselves. I respect that. And that's not the reason— I typically like to give as much to the local communities and the advisory committees when it comes down to, like, important decisions like.

This. And so having said that, I hope that when we get down the road in this meeting, I hope that, uh, the board, considering local ideas and local fleets, will also take that into consideration when they vote. Approval of this proposal may result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery due to gear change. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Thanks. Just to your last point, I would just note that this was submitted by the Chignik Advisory Committee, which is made up of mostly fishermen. So with that, the question's been called. Errors and omissions, you're on the table. Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 110 as amended. Chamberlain. Yes. Carlson-Vandork. Yes.

Erwin. Yes. Svensson. Yes. Godfrey?

No. Carpenter? No. Wood? Yes.

That motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 111.

Proposal 111, 5AAC15.357, Chinook Area Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 111 with substitute language found in RC 188. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it language in RC 188 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please.

Yes, RC would, uh, what number is it? 188. You kind of speak to both. Yeah, kind of. Okay, uh, I can speak to the original proposal first and then follow up with the other one.

Sure. Okay, so speaking to the original proposal, splitting the Metrofania Island Statistical Area may provide for more specific harvest location and effort data on fish tickets. However, harvest reporting may frequently be split between areas. It is unclear if creating two distinct statistical areas would preserve commercial fishing harvest opportunities while protecting king salmon. The department currently has emergency order authority to open, close, or modify closed waters independent of statistical area definitions.

If harvest caps were implemented, that would result in individual statistical areas closing, such as those suggested in one proposal, 112. Splitting the Metrophania Island area into two stat areas may reduce incentive to avoid triggering harvest caps due to a smaller loss of fishing area. The Department is neutral on the establishment of these new management areas. If this proposal is adopted, the Department recommends referring these new areas as regulatory subsections rather than stat areas since ADFG statistical areas are established through an internal Department process independent of the Board's regulatory process. The Department notes that if the proposal is passed, exact coordinates reference will need to be altered to retain intent and suggests that coordinates be modified to avoid crossing through the island and any bays.

Speaking towards this RC, this would split the area into two set areas. It's different from the coordinates in the original proposal, effectively more east versus west and less north versus south. It would close waters on the east side, which is where we believe that majority of juvenile fish and king salmon are harvested. The waters would be closed June 1st through July 31st. It may reduce overall harvest in the Western District in this area specifically, but we support the effort to conserve kings and believe that this would effectively do so.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, first off, um, I discussed this proposal with the people from Chignik, the fishermen that have put this in. And so that's the general idea. I had another RCN that was very different, but this is the one that we talked about and modified this morning.

And the reason for this is it's pretty clear in July, specifically in late June, that there are problem areas when it comes to juvenile king salmon and That can be shown in different statistical weeks over the course of many years. The problem is, is it's not one spot, but it typically is the side of the island that is going to be closed during the months of June and July. And so that, that's the main reason for this proposal. Um, the other reason is the other side of the island, quite frankly, doesn't quite have that potential problem or near as often when it comes to juvenile fish. So it does provide fishing opportunities still.

And there seemed to be some, at least with the people in the room and the people from Chignik, some unanimity that this, this would work fine for them. So that's the basis. Thank you. Question for the department. So I'm looking at Table 111-1, and I'm looking at sort of the king harvest numbers over the course of the last 20 years.

26, And clearly there's at least one year that jumps out pretty, pretty strong, right? And that's 2024. And we have heard in testimony that that was the result of a couple of boats that managed to get into some juvenile kings there over the course of a couple of days. What days were those? What time of year was that?

Madam Chair, I believe it was July 17th about when that happened.

Okay, and, um, sort of, do you have a sense of when you're seeing Chignik River-bound stocks, or even just king stocks in general, around the CMA? Are you seeing significant king salmon harvest in late July, or when does that start to taper off?

Yeah, Madam Chair, uh, so July is by far the highest month for king salmon harvest. I believe Proposal 112, there is a table that shows New Trafania and Western District king harvest in just the month of July that you could compare to this, which is the whole season. There is some in the usually first week or two of August, much more minimal than July. June has very little typically. But yet mid to late July is generally the peak of all king harvest.

The lagoon is more— middle, early July, generally speaking. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Okay. Thanks for that. Yeah, I guess, you know, I'm inclined to support it, but it seems a little heavy-handed to me, just because, I mean, with the exception of that one year, the averages are 1,700. We don't know where all those kings are headed for, but to put some context around that also, I would say that, you know, the CMA's King is lower bound is, I think, $1,300 or something like that.

So it's not insignificant for sure. And I don't want to certainly create that impression. Any other discussion? Mr. Wood. So to the department, if you close this area, would that potentially just push pressure onto another place where there might be higher, higher harvest?

Or is it unlikely that you'll find something that is as productive as this area? Through the trimmers, would Mitrophanie Island is definitely like the number one preferred fishing location in the Western District. At least it would certainly push people other areas. It is also though the highest presence of juvenile salmon. We definitely have lower average weights coming from this area, so it would probably reduce juvenile harvest by some amount.

It might reduce probably overall harvest as well. As far as pushing people to other locations, it would certainly do so. Great, thank you. I think it's important to point out that the juvenile salmon factor and being able to find a place where you can reduce harvest of all age groups, we've seen that in the past, and I think we'll see it move beyond this in other places already. So I support this wholeheartedly, um, even though I know it's gonna hurt a little bit, but, um, it'll definitely help the king situation in this area.

Thanks. Mr. Swenson.

Well, I've always been consistent for kings, so I'm going to support this also. The fact that any king we can save, especially those juveniles, is important. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Thank you. Before I recognize the question, I just want to put one other thought. So Metrophania Island is kind of this outlier, and it is a favorite fishing spot for a lot of folks.

It's also kind of what I would sort of stretch at the eastern end of what sort of that island— that group of islands along the entire South Alaska Pen. OK. So if we're recognizing that this is a spot, Metrophania specifically, for juveniles, then I expect to have a very similar conversation around the Shumagans. And with that, the question has been called. Errors and omissions.

Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 111 as amended. Svenson? Yes. Wood? Yes.

Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Carlson-Vandork?

Yes. Irwin? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Motion carries 7-0. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 112.

Proposed 112-5AAC-15.357, Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second. Staff comments, please.

This would aim to promote king salmon conservation while maintaining commercial sockeye salmon harvest opportunity when Chignik River king salmon are designated stock of concern by, one, implementing three tiers of management restrictions increasing in severity in the Chignik Bay District during July, two, reducing fishing time in the Mitrophenia Island area of the Western District during July, And 3, establishing king salmon harvest caps, which if reached, would result in targeted statistical area closures in areas with high king salmon harvest from July 1st through August 10th. All proposed actions are likely to reduce harvest of king salmon in the CMA, but effectiveness of individual actions are generally unknown and dependent on many variables. Reducing commercial fishing time in area in the Chignik Bay District should yield more opportunity for Chignik River king salmon to transit the area of highest commercial salmon fishing effort in the CMA, but will likely result in the greatest loss of sockeye salmon harvest opportunity. Reducing commercial fishing time around Mitofania Island will likely result in increased fishing effort in other parts of the Western District or other parts of the CMA. Establishing king salmon harvest caps and implementing commercial closure areas may decrease overall king salmon harvest as fishers will be incentivized to avoid areas with high king salmon presence.

The department supports efforts to conserve Chickameg River king salmon and non-local king salmon intercepting the CMA. If adopted, the department seeks clarification on the priority of order and what performance measures should be used when considering implementing the proposed management actions, particularly in the Chignik Bay District. It is also the department's recommendation that management action move from more conservative measures— conservative actions to less, rather than least to most as written. The department recommends specifying any additional actions aimed at conserving king salmon within the current King Salmon Action Plan rather than amending the Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Department notes exact coordinates reference will also need to be altered to retain intent.

Okay, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. So we just took two significant actions to reduce the harvest of kings by potentially reducing the depth of the net and by, you know, ice— no fishing in a certain area. Um, we've got a stock of management concern that we're using as a template in the Chignik, in Chignik area. Is this— does this help the department to have something like this, or does it— is it a bit overly complicated considering, like, what you have a plan for this, you know, stock of concern, and we've just taken these actions?

Through the chair, Mr. White, I think there's two important things to bring up. One is it's very vague as far as how to move between these tiers, and so it'd be very much loose and up to description of the manager. And we also— the other thing is I think we would prefer to start strict and then release restrictions as we have adequate king escape rather than wait partway through the season to realize that we need to do more severe actions. So we would need more direction, basically. Is that what you are doing now?

Effectively. We are starting out strict and we only made escape in this last year. So we haven't really had an opportunity to lessen those actions. Thank you. Does this language as compared— contained in 112 do anything to restrict the department's use of EO authority to be more restrictive if you feel it's warranted?

Not necessarily, no. Okay. So I mean, generally, I kind of like this proposal for a variety of reasons. One, it sort of helps inform management with the locals' knowledge of the fishing area, particularly the lagoon, which has a lot of longtime fishermen there that have a lot of very specific knowledge about those areas. So I like that it's sort of helping to guide while maintaining the flexibility of the manager, right?

You just said that you have a lot of flexibility in there. I don't know what level of prescriptiveness you'd be looking for, but I think it gives you some tools and, you know, perhaps more precision tools than you currently have.

And as a form of guidance. I actually see this really being in lieu of the action plan. It's strange to me that again, this is, this is a proposal that was put forth by the Chignik Advisory Committee, who presumably knows the most about their area and their fishery and is specific just to the Chignik Management Area. Is that correct? Yes.

So these restrictions are specific to the Chignik Management Area, but there's a whole lot of opposition that came in from outside of it, which is just baffling to me. It's interesting. Um, but it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that, um, I would like to see more of actually in, in other areas where you have stocks of concern. It's not dissimilar, I see, to sort of the process that we went through with the Nushagak and the whole committee, the 4 or 5-year protracted effort that went through in the Nushagak stock of concern to try and provide some flexible management tools within a stock of concern designation. It doesn't hinder you if you're not getting anything in there.

You can still shut it down and, and it also maintains the thresholds in reg that are here. I don't know. I don't know what level— I guess I'm trying to get at what level of prescriptiveness you would like to see in an action plan or reg in general. Sorry. [Speaker:JOHN DEL VECCHIO] Yeah.

So I think part of it is that as a stock of management concern, we are treating the stock as if it won't make excape. We are making that assumption. And so we are kind of asking the board to give us more direction on how strict to get. Because the way I interpret this, you know, it says if not enough, we move to the next step. If not enough.

Well, what is if not enough? How long do I wait? Do I wait halfway through the run to see that it is a little bit too weak? My impression is, my gut instinct would be to start at the most strict option. And I think we would like some guidance on what the board thinks that should be.

Personally, I don't disagree with you. And as it is currently written, I can see where you are getting that, especially in that second part, like paragraph 2 or whatever, where it says beginning July 1st. Personally, I mean, if that would help alleviate your concern, because you have a threshold in there, right, and you want to avoid hitting that, hopefully to avoid restriction time on sockeye harvest. I would be inclined to move that to June 1st. Would that assist with some of the concern you have?

I think the biggest thing is we would be comfortable without strict guidelines if it moved in the reverse order and started with the more strict option, and then as we had escapement that was adequate, we could then lessen those management actions. I think it mostly comes from the idea that we're supposed to start with not very strict actions, that is the all these point line but no time restrictions, And then if you're not meeting escapement by, I don't know, July 10th, then we move up. By July 15th, we move up. But the problem with that is by the time we're at July 10th or July 15th, a significant portion of the run has passed and potentially is harvested more than we would like. So if we start with the more strict option, it guarantees that we are letting as many kings through as possible.

And then if we have enough going through, then we can opt to start going down in the restrictive tiers. That would make us comfortable with it without any sort of set guidelines. But otherwise, as far as moving upwards, we would want to be like, do we move upwards if we're not reaching the midpoint of the escapement goal, the lower quartile, the bottom end? I just think there's a lot of questions there as far as how comfortable we are with waiting partway through the run before becoming more strict. So explain to me precisely, I'm just looking in your tables here.

If we're looking at King numbers and dates, the last one you said that they're significantly moving in July, in the latter part of July.

Yes. So— Wouldn't it then track if they're not seeing as many kings coming in in the beginning part of the season that that might be an opportunity to harvest sockeye when you're seeing traditionally less sockeye— I mean, kings present, and then ratchet down when the run peaks towards the latter part of July? That's an option. Yeah, it— but ultimately there still is king escapement happening during that time, and you have to be comfortable with harvesting more than you would otherwise if you are doing a stricter option. Which you could do by EO.

I think we are looking to not have to do it by EO. I think we are looking for the Board to tell us— we are going to try and stick to whatever you guys decide for the action plan. We would like to not have to go farther. Fair. Fair.

I track you and that is totally reasonable.

Reasonable. So any other important discussion? Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the department.

Is the ability to restrict HomePack within the department's authority, or does that only— is that only within the board's authority?

Through the chair, Ms. Erwin, so that, that's a board decision. So the, the way that regulations currently stand on home pack in this area, it's allowed. Okay, thank you. My concern is something that Member Wood— actually, Member Carpenter brought up a few days ago during this presentation, was that in 2025, non-retention of all kings was restricted for subsistence uses. However, the, the allowance of retention of 28 or greater inches of kings was still allowed in the commercial fishery while the subsistence fishing was closing.

So that's of a concern to me. And so I would like, whenever we're deliberating this and deciding what measures and metrics to be taking, we're ensuring that we're still providing for subsistence needs during this time. And maybe that's a— that might be a board conversation, not a department conversation, but I just wanted to make that note. Mr. Swanson. Man, this gets complicated.

So my understanding, you're, you're not very comfortable with the way this RC is written.

Uh, we're not comfortable with the way the proposal is written as is, just because it's unclear how quickly we should increase the severity of those tiered restrictions. So are you, are you comfortable with managing it? You're more comfortable, in other words, of managing it yourselves because you can start tough and get easier as it goes along. Is that not correct? Yeah, we would be more comfortable with starting out at the strictest option you guys would like and then moving to less restrictive throughout the season if we are seeing adequate escapement.

But you don't feel comfortable. You want us to make that decision. You don't feel comfortable with handling this yourself.

I think that's what the action plan is there for, is for you guys to decide what's appropriate. We jumped in in '24 after we saw historical, like, large— like, largely the worst returns we've ever seen in 2023. And that was after they were able to fish every single day in the lagoon. Even with non-retention. And then we did 2 days a week and 24, and we went from 267 escapement to 1,100-something.

And then this last year we did the same thing and we had 1,300. So we saw that it worked, but obviously it reduces a lot of opportunity on Sakai. And so this proposal and our action plan options are similar but modified versions of that that you guys could choose from to see if you can come up with a way that would better allow sockeye harvest while protecting the kings adequately. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Considering everything the department's saying here, I mean, my suggestion would be that we take a stand down for 15 minutes and try and put this in a perspective that makes sense for everybody. But that's just a suggestion. Yeah, I think it's probably worth having a conversation about this. Either that could be done with 112, or we could create regulatory language for the action plan as well. So we could do that a couple of different ways.

My thought that I want to get on the record before we do so is I want— I would like to see this around the peak of the run. So I want to see the most restrictive actions occurring around when that peak is. I mean, you could keep everybody shut down if there's a handful of Chinook coming in in the early— if you're starting to see them show up. Cut it off, you know what I mean? But if they are not showing up early in June, then there may be some opportunity that could be had and that these restrictions occur around the time where they are really starting to present in earnest.

That is what makes sense to me.

So I am not quite sure what that looks like or how that would deviate from the language in 112, but perhaps that is a conversation we can have right now. Mr. Commissioner, and then Mr. Bowers. Yeah, so maybe I can ask staff, so what's the variability of what that first part of the run is like? And I hear what you're saying because that's the same concern I have, is we get those reports back in 2 or 3 days later and they're still fishing for 2 or 3 days and we harvest a bunch of kings. And I think what you're asking for is the same concern that when I, when I talk to you in season is those kings are already harvested, we can't get them back.

So do we want to be more conservative at the start. And I guess I just need to understand from you, how much variability is there in that date setting? Is it— is there like a week or so difference every year? And how do you make that call as a manager? Yeah, so we picked July because it's the central 80% of the run historically.

There's usually 10% in June, 80% or so in July, and 10% or so in August. Unfortunately, or fortunately, however you look at it, It's a— historically, it's a pretty linear escapement throughout the whole month of July. It doesn't have a strong peak at any point throughout the month. It's pretty consistent. Maybe the central 2 weeks have a little bit more, but really it's pretty stable.

Recently it shifted to be later, but I think we would have hesitations on trying to fish harder on the first half or the second half of that when maybe that's the weaker half that needs to recover. So I guess that's the Concern I would have with fishing harder in early July is that historically they came in stronger during that time period, and it'd be kind of similar to fishing harder and, you know, the first half of June on the early run or something like that. That's the, that's the part we're trying to let recover. Um, so, so really I think that whole month of July is why we picked that, because it's the bulk of the king run. Um, that it definitely tails out in August and June.

There are fish there, but we haven't been doing restrictions during the time frame because that is the end and the beginning. But really the whole month of July is pretty steady King Excavation. Okay. So, you know, 112 is talking about July, right? So we just need to sort of reverse, you know, the order of actions is what you would be suggesting?

Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. I was just going to point you to Figure 112-7 in the staff comments. I think that figure illustrates what Mr. Burnside just said, that, you know, there appears, at least in the last couple years, to be, you know, kind of a shift towards later in the season on run timing. I think that's illustrated really well there with that, I guess, purple and brown line representing escapement timing.

Through the weir in '24 and '25.

Um, let's go ahead, Mr. Wood. Did you want to get anything out? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. Currently, you're— the actions you're taking are by following the management plan for the stock of concern, and you're remaining conservative on the throughout based on that management plan, that stock of concern management plan. Through Chair Mr. Wood, no, what we've done the last 2 years is beyond the '23 action plan.

Uh, we followed the action plan in 2023, saw really bad returns that year because there is a lot of fishing happening in July. Um, and so we went with a pretty extreme measure of 2 days a week. Um, but it, it's worked. So now we are— that is one of our suggestions for the action plan going forward, but there's a few other options that we're suggesting too. And we'd be comfortable with this if it was started at the more severe, stricter side and then moved down.

Okay. Well, let's take a little break here, bio break and chat break, and I'd like to talk to the proposers. Thank you.

Hi folks, I just want to let everybody know that we are working on some substitute language. As you know, that can be a little bit time-consuming, so we're going to take an early lunch so as not to derail our agenda too much, and we will come back together at 1 o'clock. To go ahead and complete, um, Group 1, and then we'll take a short break and begin on Group 2. Okay, so 1 o'clock, back together, and we will pick up where we left off on 1:12 with Group 1. See you then.

Thank you.

For the commercial, the sport fish, and the subsistence fisheries and give guidance to the department on that. How is the department currently managing the sports and commercial fisheries under the SOC designation?

Yeah, so the intent for the subsistence fishery, which I will speak to, is to have non-retention of king salmon 28 inches and greater in the Chugach River system and the Chugach Lagoon, and that would be relaxed if we started reaching the lower end of the BEG.

Madam Chair, Tyler Pollom for the record, area sport fish biologist. For sport fisheries, we managing per the terms of the previous action plan adopted in 2023, which is just status quo emergency order management. And then we included additional restrictions given the record low return in 2023 to include all of Chignik Lagoon as well as the Chignik River and Lake in the closures for king salmon.

Thank you. Is sport fishing allowed for king salmon in the saltwater areas outside of Chignik Lagoon? Madam Chair, yes, the sport fishery is open outside Chignik Lagoon, so essentially outside the spit. It, it is included in the Gulf of Alaska-wide restrictions to 1 king salmon per day for all anglers. Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that we get those elements on the record. Certainly it's my intent for the department to manage as it has been with respect to the subsistence and sport fisheries, although they're, I mean, particularly with the sport fishery, pretty negligible as both of the sport fishing, at least the ones that I know of, the guiding lodges out there have closed since the king crashes. But I just kind of wanted to make sure that that's a part of the discussion if this is intended to be sort of in lieu of the menu option of the action plan. For discussion. Miss Irwin.

Yeah, thank you, Miss VanDort. Thank you for bringing forward the substitute motion or substitute language. Before we go any further, I'd just like to get some clarification on the 2025 season from the Department of Law on the legality of under the subsistence priority for subsistence and sport to have been closed while still allowing the incidental harvest of Chinook in the commercial fishery when those subsistence and sport times were closed? Yes, Member Erwin, through the chair. So I think we briefly discussed this off record.

So it is absolutely possible, even if through an oversight, that king retention be maintained through a commercial fishery, even if subsistence and sport king retention is closed. So long as the ANS for salmon in the area has been met or a reasonable opportunity is provided and subsistence is closed, it is possible for the department to keep commercial fisheries open and for king salmon to be retained through the home pack policy. And just to clarify, home pack is not a subsistence take. That is a take under commercial regulations. Otherwise, you could potentially have non-resident commercial fishermen taking home subsistence fish.

So that hopefully addresses your question. Okay, thank you. It partially does. My concern is just that we passed this, and, and for me, I, I guess I would seek clarification from the department or, or legal on whether or not a reasonable opportunity was provided in 2025, because there was no allowance for any retention of kings in 2025 in the subsistence fishery. So Was there reasonable opportunity for subsistence?

That's something for the department to comment on. What I can say is that the ANS was set for all salmon species. It is possible that there be a limitation on kings that doesn't offend subsistence.

So for the subsistence portion of that, I think I heard you say that there was non-retention for over 28 inches. Uh, Madam Chair, yeah, so in '25 that wasn't the case. The idea was that everywhere else in the Chignik Bay District or the CMA in general was not restricted to king salmon. Um, it was in some senses, uh, certainly not the intent to allow commercial fishing on kings, not subsistence. And going forward, we will only be doing 28 inches and above to maintain that consistency.

So in the commercial fishery There's non-retention currently on kings 28 inches and above. That will be put into effect for the coming season. Yeah. In the Chignik River system and Chignik Bay and in the lagoon, non-retention of just 28 inches and above for the subsistence fishery. They would be allowed to retain under 28.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that. I would personally rather have it just be full retention as we did in the Nushagak. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Maybe I could ask Carl to clarify a couple things just for the record here.

So, um, were— could subsistence users retain king salmon outside the Chignik Bay District, or was it just— was that CMA-wide or just in a portion of the CMA? And then And then I wasn't sure if— just so everyone's clear regarding retention outside of the Chignik Bay District, with the King triggers that are in place, we would have mandatory retention there, correct?

So subsistence fishing was restricted just for king salmon, not for any other species in the Chignik River system and the Chignik Lagoon, not the whole Chignik Bay District. The Chignik Bay District is much larger than just the lagoon, so anything on the ocean side of the spit outwards was— you couldn't retain any king salmon in the subsistence fishery.

As for the mandatory retention, that is our intent right now on the outside districts, but would probably need to be clarified.

Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification, uh, for the Chinook Bay Central and Eastern Districts, the ANS for Chinook salmon is 100 to 150 king salmon. Thank you.

Mr. Irwin. Thank you. So then I guess my question is back to the Department of Law, because you said if the ANS is set for all salmon species that this wouldn't have undermined the subsistence priority, but we just heard from Mr. Pappas that there is an ANS for Chinook $100,000 to $150,000, which was— there was no opportunity provided or allowed for that. I just want— I'm sorry, I just want to make sure this is very clear on the record of whether or not we are meeting the subsistence priority statute. Member Erwin, through the Chair, I would have to look at the facts more detailed and before making that determination and before putting on the record here.

But I can add that everything that I've heard, I do believe at this point nothing has necessarily offended the subsistence allocation priority— or excuse me, allocation, but there's the subsistence priority.

And one more thing to add on that, I'm sorry. I just want to note that it's absolutely possible that commercial fishing be opening while subsistence remains closed, the key feature of the subsistence priority statute is that subsistence uses be given a reasonable opportunity to engage or take that subsistence harvest. So thank you. Precisely. And I'm not seeing that there was a reasonable opportunity at this time.

So that was my concern. Thank you.

So let's talk about this mandatory retention piece of things. So can you restate what you were talking about in terms of the intent or clarity you would need in terms of where you would go non-retent— or you would go required retention, please. Yeah, Madam Chair, so in 2025, to enforce these king salmon caps primarily, and for some of the sampling that was going on, we had mandatory retention in the outer districts, specifically Eastern District, Western District, and Perryville District. Um, and that was basically to enforce these king salmon caps. Um, Central District and Trinity Bay District were mandatory non-retention, being more terminal areas, trying to help out the local king stocks.

Okay. I think that makes sense, frankly. I think that makes good sense that you were doing that just so that we can, one, try and get an idea of what's happening on the outside and certainly recognize the vulnerability of those kings before they start to hit and come into their— get close to their terminal areas. So it would be my intent, and I can only speak for myself as one member of this board, that that may— that construct or whatever be continued as part of the SOC action plan. But I would open that up for discussion if there is any concern or questions about that.

Ms. Irwin. Thank you. I guess I just have one more question as to if the— if there was non-.

Retention required of the subsistence users even if we didn't close the commercial fishery, why wasn't there EO authority used to require non-retention of kings? Or was there, was there a requirement for non-retention of kings in the commercial fishery in 2025? There was a— yes, there was non-retention of 28 inches and over required for the commercial fishery. The only reason we haven't— and it was Specifically in EO and advisory announcements, ask that all kings be non-retained in the Tignic Lagoon, but we deem it not enforceable to require non-retention under 28 inches in a commercial fishery.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Any other discussion? Mr. Commissioner? Yeah, I just have one point here. I just kind of read through the last— it was— I'm generally familiar with this, what this RC was about, but the D3, if in two consecutive years of escapement are near the upper bound. So I'm just trying to figure out what are near the upper bound about, because I can imagine that as commissioner or the area management biologist is going to get all kinds of calls while we're near it.

So do you have any guidance to the department as to what you mean by near?

I would say between the midpoint and the upper bound. Okay. Is nearing the upper bound. Okay. Thank you.

So whatever 3/4 of that is. Okay. Right? That's kind of how I would think about it. Well, I just want to get that intent because we're going to be under immense pressure when somebody thinks we're near it.

So I just want to get some clear—. Fair enough. —Words on that. Yeah. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I'd just like to add that in this discussion that we just made significant reductions in gear to avoid Chinook to preserve their life. And so I really— the non-retention is important, I think, for returning those if it's possible to survive. Thank you.

In the inner portion of the area, the management area, or the outer portion of the management area? Mostly to the outer portion, I believe. Over 28. Non-retention in the outer portion, which is contrary to what they were doing, because you think that they're going to survive being in a seine net and that they can be effectively released and for the genetics that they were trying to accomplish. I'm very wholeheartedly into the genetics.

I Perhaps I'll save this discussion for later on. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Before the— I recognize the question, I just want to make sure that the department doesn't have any ambiguity about board's intent.

Discontent with this language and what we are doing with the SOC plan?

I don't believe we do.

Okay. Question has been called, errors and omissions.

Nobody is raising any. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on proposal 112 as amended. Carlson-Vandort. Yes.

Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes. Godfrey.

Yes. Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes.

Erwin? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Madam Chair.

Moving on to Proposal 109.

Proposal 109, 5AAC 15.200, the fishing districts, sections, and subsections, and 5AAC 15.357, Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. The area known as Jack's Box residing within the Central District would instead be incorporated into the Chignik Bay District.

Because the Chignik Bay and Central Districts are typically opened concurrently, this change is unlikely to have significant effect on commercial fishing time or area. Effectiveness of fishing in Jack's Box may decrease due to more restrictive gear requirements of the Chignik Bay District which may reduce harvest. The fishing effort in the Jack's Box area from boats that use larger seine gear more consistent with fishing in the Eastern, Central, Western, and Paraville districts, the CMA, would be reduced. And just to clarify, if this were incorporated in the Chignik Bay District, it actually would result in more closures to this area as is, as of Proposal 112. The department is neutral on this proposal.

If adopted, the department will define Jack's Box as its own statistical area for management purposes.

Thank you. So let me just make sure that I'm following you here properly. So the action that we just took with respect to the RC and for Proposal 112 essentially changes the designation of this particular area and takes it out of the Central District and into the Chignik Bay District formally, correct? If this proposal, that being 109, were passed, that would be correct. Yes.

And it would be part of those minimum closures of part of 112. Right. So for folks that are less familiar with this, with where this area is, I think there is a map here in the staff comments. This is outside of the Chignik Lagoon area. So of course, a lot of the particular language that was included in the RC-4-112 dealt with areas within the lagoon that are known to be where kings are present, where they hold, and trying to give the department prescriptive yet flex— prescriptive guidance, but maintaining flexibility for them to be able to try and move boats around to maintain opportunity on sockeyes if they're in abundance.

So I guess as I look at this, this kind of puts it in a little bit of a weird space because the intent of 109, as I understand it, was to be able to provide when those times when there's a lot of restrictions within the lagoon itself and we know that the fish that are in this area are headed for the Chignik and Black River, essentially, depending upon what time it is. I mean, they're very, very close to the terminus in this, in this area. Was the intent— the intent was to provide some opportunity for those small boat local fishermen that typically fish the lagoon to be able to use their shorter, smaller, shallower gear in this particular area to provide some potential opportunity if they so chose just outside essentially the mouth of the lagoon and in the near portions of the Central District, what is currently the Central District or what would— yes, what is currently the Central District. So I guess for me, it would be my intention to want the Department to keep an eye on it, but allow for some flexibility within this very specific area. Um, if they were comfortable with the King returns and didn't have concerns about limited opportunity in this pretty small area, as it's now a part or could be a part of the Chignik Bay District if this proposal were passed.

Did I say that? Did I articulate that at all properly? I think it was clear in my head.

Yeah, so that your idea is that it would not be— it could have the option to not be included in these mandatory closures based around King Conservation just passing 112.

If adopted in the District of Columbia District, right? So as long as that flexibility and discretion is maintained through EO authority with the department, I'm comfortable with 109. But when opening up for other discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

The way this is currently— the current regulations in place now, these all three of these pieces of the pie, you're allowed to fish in there when open, correct? Irregardless of if you have a small boat, a big boat, small seine, big seine. Through Chairman Culver, yes, as is. Anybody could fish in that central district when it's open. Including when the Chignik Bay District is closed.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER DIXON] So if you were going to have to restrict based on king conservation or whatever, like the chair just stated, that would give opportunity. And I guess what I'm trying to figure out is I'm just kind of looking at where this is in comparison to the Chignik Lagoon, the Chignik District.

What, what does this box, if you were to allow some sort of harvest when outside areas were closed, does this box,.

Is there any concern about king harvest in this box when you're actually closing areas outside because of king conservation? I guess that's my question. So this area has not been closed, at least the majority of it, right? Most of it is in the central district, which we have not been closing except for when we have closed the central district on rare occasions, such as in 2024 due to really low pink and chum harvest or escapement. So the only portion of the jackbox that has been closing as a result of the king conservation issues are— is that little corner that's inside the Chignik Bay District.

Um, we don't have good harvest numbers for this box specifically because it's a centerpiece of like 4 different statistical areas. So if people are fishing there right now, we don't actually have a good way of knowing that it specifically came from this point. Um, but yeah, we have not been closing it lately, so I don't think we have large concerns over Kingcatch there at the moment. Okay, thank you. If we had this as its own stat area, whether it was part of Central or Chignik Bay District, we would be able to start seeing that though.

Well, I guess a follow-up to that, I mean, stat areas are within the department's purview. Is that something the department would consider if this were adopted, is that would become a new stat area? Yeah, that's the intent. I think the only reason it's not right now is because it crosses district lines as is. Okay, thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Irwin? Yeah, thank you. Based on the staff's comments just now about the harvest data, I think that it is important for us to have very specific data from these statistical areas. You know, we just took action on, on a proposal that was specific to knowing what— how much fish were being caught in these different stat areas.

And so For that reason, I think that the more information and data that we have, if it's not going to put a burden on the department, I think that this is a good proposal.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question has been called.

Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll on 109. Final action on Proposal 109. Erwin. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Godfrey. Yes. Swenson.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Carlson-Vandork. Yes.

Carpenter. Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Okay, that brings the action plans up for discussion. I believe that we've dealt with the King Salmon Stock of Concern action plan, which leaves the stockeye Sockeye Concern Action Plan.

You want this up on the board? Uh, sure, that would be helpful if you guys don't mind.

Thank you. Um, would you please walk us through the SSC action plan? Yes, Madam Chair. So we have one suggestion for each of the fisheries, and each will be status quo. I will walk through what each of those have been.

And then I will walk through the different delisting criteria that we gave as an option, and I can include the recent one for the king salmon as well. So we are recommending status quo for the commercial actions. That would be status quo to RC-104 and the 2023 action plan. If Chignik Early Run sockeye are not projected to meet the lower bound of the OEG, Shumagin Island section commercial periods would be reduced by 50%. Those timeframes would be— the reduced timeframes would be 33 hours, 6:00 AM June 16th to 3:00 PM June 17th, 44 hours, 6:00 AM June 20th to 4:00 AM June 22nd, 44 hours, 6:00 AM June 25th to 4:00 AM June 27th.

And that is dependent on not actively reaching the low end of our interim goals for the early-run OEG. Subsistence action is, again, status quo. We have never chosen to reduce sockeye opportunity on sockeye salmon in the Chignik area, and we would be very unlikely to do so in the future.

For sport, we also have chosen to not restrict any sport opportunity, mostly because there is not an active sport fishery there. If one were to develop, we would evaluate it through EO.

Again, the conditions— the base conditions have been lower bound of the OEG range met or exceeded in 3 consecutive years or 4 out of 6 years. And expecting to meet the goal range in future years. You could also modify this to include at least 1 year with midpoint escapement, as you just did with the king salmon one.

Alternate conditions, alternate goal could be the same but targeting a 350,000 to 450,000 range, which case we would also target that midpoint for escapement purposes and management, which would delay and reduce CMA harvest opportunity. And lastly, we providing an option that would be not dependent on any postseason modeling or apportionment methods. It would just be a raw sockeye count from both runs, that being 150,000 fish through June 25th, 250,000 through July 5th, 350,000 through July 15th. I would have to meet all three of those dates with the same criteria, 3 out of 3 years, 4 out of 6. The idea being especially that June 25th One is it's prior to much late-run influence.

It's a little bit above the low-end OEGs. And so it's just generally a safe indicator that escapement will definitively be made for that early run.

And that's it. Thank you. And just so that I'm very clear, so all of the conditions for delisting, if you could go back to the status quo one, I just want to make sure that they're all predicated on the OEG numbers, correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Owen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could you go back to the first? I think it's the first slide.

Yes, so my question, I guess, is how— if the board adopted this action for commercial, if later on in this meeting the board adopts any changes to the existing schedule for the June fishery, how would that affect the action that we're taking here on this SOC plan? Through the chair, Ms. Irving, that's a good question. We would do the same thing we did in '23 when this happened, in that we— the intent is the 50% specifically. So we would stick to a 50% of whatever that time frame is. Okay, okay, thank you very much for answering that.

That's helpful.

Just, just so that we're clear here, this commercial action number 1 that we're looking at represents the status quo, right? That the top one? Yeah, Madam Chair, yes, that's right. Yeah, we're recommending status quo across the board. Yeah, and I, I don't disagree.

I think that the status quo, I think, has been working. You've seen, um, or those mechanisms have been, have been working. We're seeing Sockeye moving into the terminal area, which is what it was intended to do. So my— I would be in support of essentially maintaining status quo and just making sure that the delisting criteria is very clear for everybody. I think the department's been doing a good job in this space.

Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'm okay with status quo too. I mean, even with the new information that we've got from the, you know, that came to us, which shows that the excavations are being made and criteria seems to be being met Yeah, I think remaining conservative and continuing to do what you're doing is probably the most conservative thing is until we're certain. So the one thing that I would add to that though is that, you know, it would be my intent if genetics are available to be using the postseason genetics to evaluate whether or not those in-season, those goals were met. And I think that that was part of the debate over whether or not the— hearkening back to October, whether or not the goal was met.

I think it was in '23. Yeah. So, I mean, if genetics are available, and I know that they may or may not be, I know that that speaks directly to the department's budget, but there is genetic data that has been made available through— I think it's— I don't know if it's the CIC or C. ray or whatever it is. If it's available, that the department utilize the most refined data that you have, essentially genetics, to make those determinations post-season as you look at whether or not the goals were actually met. I recognize that you can't make those management decisions using GIS in-season, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that you do, but that you're ground-truthing.

Your, um, post-season numbers with genetics if they're available. Yeah, Madam Chair, I didn't specify in these, but, um, in the action plan itself it does specify that we will use genetics if available for these determinations. Excellent. Thank you. All but the last one of the, the, yeah, 3 girls.

Yeah, thank you very much for that. Miss Irwin, and then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. Um, Madam Chair, I would like to see the 1 year of the midpoint escapement goal be included in the delisting criteria, similar to how we did at the the King— we just passed with the King delisting criteria. I'm wondering process-wise, do I need to make a motion since I don't have language before me?

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. So I'm looking for— I think what I'd like to do is just to make it very clear for the record, two separate motions, one for the actions that the department will take under the stock of concern listing, and then the second motion would be for the delisting criteria specifically so that there's no confusion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, for sockeye-specific Chigik early run, um, I recommend that the board adopt the commercial option, which is alternative 1 status quo. For sport, status quo alternative 1, and subsistence, status quo alternate, alternate 1.

No, I moved it. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objections, so moved. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, in regards to delisting stock of concern, I move that the board adopt the language for delisting 3 consecutive years in the department expecting to meet the goal in future years, or 4 out of 6 consecutive years the department is expecting to meet the goal in future years, in addition to that want, want at least 1 year that the midpoint be met.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So as I heard it, Mr. Nelson, it is 3 consecutive years, 4 of 6 years meeting the lower end, and 1 of those years need to meet the midpoint.

Is that helpful? Got it? And we will need a second. I second that. Ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, so moved. Is there any other clarifications or things that you need for the Chignik early-run sockeye stock of concern action plan?

Uh, Madam Chair, no.

Looking around the table. All right, I believe that concludes deliberations on Group 1. We'll take a very short break and we'll come back for Group 2.

All right. We are back on the record. The time is 2:40. We are going to go ahead and get into deliberations of Group 2, which includes South Alaska Peninsula, South Southeastern District mainland salmon, commercial salmon gear, retention of commercial caught salmon and herring. There are 18 proposals in this group.

There is some substitute language being worked on for proposal number 107. So we're going to take that up at the end. We'll probably pause to make sure that it gets RC'd before we deliberate that. And then we will begin today with proposal number 119, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Jeff Spallinger. At the table with me is Matt Keyes. Proposal 119, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. This would allow commercial salmon fishing with set gillnet gear and after July 11th with seine gear in the Southeastern District mainland portion of the Southeastern District concurrently with commercial salmon fishing periods in the Chignik Management Area. The sockeye salmon harvest thresholds as described in the Southeastern District Management Plan would be repealed. This would result in fishing periods in the SETM opening concurrently with those in the CMA. However, it remains unclear which specific portion of the management unit of the CMA the SETM commercial openings would be based upon.

The department is neutral on the allocative— on this allocative proposal.

The department seeks clarification from the board regarding the term fishing periods in the Chignik Management Area. As the CMA is at times not managed as a single continuous area, the department assumes the proponent is referring to the established sockeye salmon allocation timeframe of June 1st through July 25th. If that is not the intent, the department would have significant conservation concerns for local salmon stocks. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, It should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted. Thank you.

More discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I look, I mean, this proposal is very vague and I agree with the department that trying to manage this based on the CMA because of the way the different components of the CMA are open and closed I think would be very difficult. And I also agree with the fact that, you know, dealing with the other species of fish at later periods of time, I also agree that that could also be complex. And so, I mean, just because of the way the proposal is vague, I just can't support it the way it's written.

Other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, it's vague, and given the actions we just took on the stock of concern and relating it to the CMA, I understand that probably making this happen right now is not the right time.

Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll go ahead and do the subsistence regulation review. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? No.

Is this stock taking customary and traditional use? Yes. The board has made a positive customary and traditional use finding for halibut and all other finfish in Alaska Peninsula and waters surrounding the Pribilof Islands. Can this— can a portion of the stock be harvested with sustained yield? Yes.

The amounts necessarily determined by the board for salmon are 34,000 to 56,000 for subsistence use. Do these— do the regulations provide reasonable opportunity for subsistence? I believe they do. Is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other opportunities at the time? At this time, I don't think so.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional no cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 119. Svenson? No. Wood? No.

Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandork?

No. Irwin? No. Godfrey? No.

Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair, Proposal 121. Proposal 121, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. This would remove the 600,000 sockeye salmon harvest criteria in the Chignik Management Area that is expected before commercial fishing can occur in the Southeastern District Mainland. This would allow commercial fishing in the Setom area to commence as soon as commercial fishing began in the CMA and would increase the harvest of salmon, including non-local salmon, in the Setom. In most years, fishing time would occur earlier in the setum as the department would no longer need to be assured of a harvest of 600,000 sockeye salmon in the CMA before opening the Southeastern District mainland. The department would still manage the Southeastern District mainland fishery so that the harvest is as near as possible to 7.6% of the sockeye salmon harvest in the CMA through July 25th.

The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, It should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Learning that this is tied to the CMA and that there's— but with the reduction of the fleet in the Chignik area, It does seem a little bit frustrating that with the reduction of fleet, it's going to take a lot longer to hit these thresholds. However, there is just such a large area to continue to use throughout the district that I feel the pain, but there's still other places they have the opportunity to go other places.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I agree with Mr. Wood. You know, I understand the plight that was demonstrated in public testimony and committee of the whole from the public in regards to this. And look, I think we all wish that, you know, there was more opportunity.

But the way the fishery has been prosecuted in the Chignik area recently, at least the last 4 or 5 years with poor sockeye runs, those are, those are improving. Improved runs hopefully will bring more fleet back to Chignik, and if more fleet comes back to Chignik, I think that this probably has a good— I think there's going to be more opportunity for people in this area. And I would encourage the department also, and I know that you've said it, to try and get that 7.6 or as close as you can to that 7.6. So that's all I have to say on this. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Wood. I would just add that I do see the difficulty in this. I mean, the distance you have to travel to even go there and the fact you're still paying yearly permit lease fees on your site. I mean, and then for what reason? But I guess over time, just like Member Carpenter said, hopefully with the increase of the run back to Chignik and more fishing potential, hopefully we meet these numbers sooner.

Yeah, thank you. I think I agree with both of those statements, and I think that if you did look back at some of the historical allocation averages during the time when there was stronger sockeye, you'd see that the plan worked. So we're in a kind of a wonky time period, and I think there's adjustments that need to be made all over the earth. So, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I'll reference my subsistence review from the last proposal. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 121. Wood? No.

Godfrey. Yes. Carlson VanDort. No. Irwin.

No. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter. No.

Svenson. No. That motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 122. Proposal 122, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 122 as the author withdrew support found in RC173. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 122.

Proposal 123. Proposal 123, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This would adjust the sockeye salmon harvest criteria in the Chignik Management Area that guides commercial fishing periods in the Southeastern District mainland and adjust the allocated setum harvest based on the processing capacity or number of boats fishing in the CMA. There would be an increase in commercial fishing time and salmon harvest, including harvest of non-local salmon in setum during years when less than 61 boats fish at the CMA. In years with no local or limiting processing capacity, the set'em would be managed based on Chignik River sockeye salmon escapement. Each boat fishing the CMA would be required to register with the department. In years with 61 or more boats registered to fish the CMA, the set'em would be managed similar to current management with the same allocation.

The department opposes a registration requirement for the CMA fishery because it creates an additional administrative burden with no management or conservation benefit and runs counter to Administrative Order 360. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence users if the proposal is adopted. Thank you. Board discussion?

Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, it's pretty— it's pretty clear to me that, um, based on the staff comments, that there would be an increase in the fishing on non-local stocks. And given that the department also is, is saying that this would be an additional administrative burden with no management or, or conservation benefit, I'm not seeing, um, really quite the benefit in, in this proposal as of right now. But I'm open to hear more discussion.

Mr. Godfrey. I would echo what Board Member Irwin said, in particular, in opposition to a registration requirement, CMA, that the department illustrates. So I'll be opposed. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you.

I agree with those comments as well. I think that this is very complex, and I think that it would be very hard to— for the department to execute this. And so for those reasons, I'll be opposed. I'll also reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal would not— would result in additional cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would, would result in additional cost to the department.

Call the question. Questions have been called. Any errors or omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 123. Carlson, VanDorp. No. Carpenter.

No. Wood. No. Godfrey. No.

Svenson. No. Chamberlain. No. Irwin.

No. That motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 124. Proposal 124, 5AAC09.360. Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This would change the estimate of sockeye salmon destined for the Chignik River system from 80% to between 55% and 68% of the harvest in the Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. A reduction of Set'em harvested sockeye salmon considered Chignik-bound for the Chignik River would likely result in increased commercial fishing time and harvest in the Set'em in years when the CMA is meeting the harvest criteria that guides fishing periods in the setum.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted.

Board discussion. Ms. Erwin, then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I guess a question for the department. So this is not This is not changing the allocation.

This is changing what the department assumes the percentage of sockeye is. So for me, that seems— that would be science and biological based, not policy based. Am I— what am I missing?

Yeah, through the chair, Ms. Irwin. So currently, 80% of the fish harvested in Setom are considered Chignik bound that go toward that 7.6% number. So this would reduce that to between 55 and 68% going toward that number. And how did the department initially establish that 80%? I believe that was from a tagging study in the '60s.

Thank you. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Jeff, could you clarify that 80%— that's in regulation, right? Yes, that's correct.

Thanks. So, so just, Mr. Warren, in relation to your question, the, the 80% is based on the tagging information that Jeff referenced, and then the board has placed that number into regulation. Okay, great. So it's a science-based number that we then put into regulation. Thank you for clarifying.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. I mean, that was kind of what I was going to ask too. And I guess to the— I'm trying to recall the public testimony in regards to how they calculated the 55 to 68%, and I believe that was an average and they— that they kind of picked in there. If that number were adjusted How much actually more opportunity would that create?

You can kind of base that on the last couple years, let's say.

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that would depend on the size of the Chignik Run and how large the harvest is, but I don't— it would be about 15%. Less of that number, I don't think it would be very substantial on most years. Thank you.

Other board discussion?

I'll put, you know, a couple thoughts on here, kind of along with this whole suite of proposal that the Chicknick sockeye fishery, when it was fully— was fully allocated when that sockeye fishery was established, and Chignik-bound sockeye migrate through sediment. That's established fact. I don't think anybody's disputing that. And that was recognized by AAFNG when it established that 80% sockeye assignment, even though some studies reflected as high as 90, and there's a range, you know, per the proposer's information about what that number actually is. I'm not particularly inclined to change it at this time.

So I would say that, you know, this, this was a fully utilized fishery prior to the setum fisheries establishment, although they're both— I want to acknowledge that they're both pretty old fisheries and that this management plan has been in place for, I think, like about 40 years. I think in public testimony I heard around 1985.

Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yeah, there was quite a bit of back and forth on this one, but I don't think that I found anything that met the criteria to kind of justify changing this. And yeah, I definitely agree with updating stats as new information comes available, but I don't think I don't know that we've hit that threshold yet.

I'll listen to other board members, but at this time I'm not inclined to support this. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I also want to say I appreciate all the information provided by the proposer. There was a lot to look at in order to understand where they're coming from. I just— there will come a time where I think this totally makes sense.

But given where we're at with the stock in Chignik, now is just not the time.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Just before I read the subsistence review, I think that based the way that this percentage was derived back in the '80s, I think really to change that number, because it would be very allocative, I think there would have to be some new information that was derived from some sort of a tagging study or something to see if the numbers have changed dramatically. So for that reason alone, I will not support it.

I will go ahead and reference my subsistence regulation review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions have been called. Errors and omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 124. Erwin? No. Chamberlain?

No. Godfrey? No. Svenson? No.

Wood? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Carpenter?

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 125. Proposal 125, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This would replace the Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan with the Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan. Commercial fishing periods in the SETMM would open concurrently with those in the CMA. However, it is unclear as to which portion of the Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan the SETMM would be managed upon. This would also limit the department's ability to manage the Northwest Steppevec section and Orzinski Bay for Orzinski Lake sockeye salmon beginning July 1st and the entire SETMM for local pink, chum, and coho salmon after July 25th. The department is neutral on the alloc— on this allocative proposal.

However, if the proposal is adopted, the department would need guidance on which portion of the Chignik Area Salmon Management Plan to manage set'em under. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted.

Board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I will reference my comments to the prior proposal that is very similar to this. I think that proposals need to be written more specific. I mean, to— and I think the Department has laid that out in their comments where there really is no guidance in the proposal as to what part of the Chignik Management Area that the sedum would fall under.

I think for those reasons alone, I mean, I'm not a real big fan of trying to like let the board decide which ones those are. I'd rather see that come from the public and have the board take action on those. So for those reasons, I'm not going to support this.

Mr. Woodman. Yeah, I agree with Member Carpenter. And, you know, again, the proposer gave us a lot of extra information in our C's to explain the, you know, what we're getting at or what they were getting at here. And it's, it's complicated, but it's vague, and, and I don't support it right now.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions.

Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 125. Chamberlain. No. Carlson-Vandort.

No. Erwin. No. Svenson. No.

Godfrey. No. Carpenter. No. Wood.

Nope. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 126. Proposal 126, 5AAC09.200, Description of Districts and Sections, 5AAC09.360, Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan, and 5AAC09.365, South Unimak and Chumigan Islands June Salmon Management Plan. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would move the Volcano Bay section of the southwestern district into the south-central district and add the majority of sections that make up the Dolgoy Island area to the Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. The commercial harvest in this area would be included in the 7.6% Southeastern District Mainland Chignik allocation, and there would not be a 191,000 sockeye salmon harvest limit imposed on the Dolgoi Island area commercial fishery during June 1st through July 25th. Commercial fishing time and salmon harvest in June and July would likely be reduced in the Dolgoi Islands area as it would be dependent on the Chignik River sockeye salmon escapement and harvest.

Fishing periods for these areas would run concurrently with fishing periods in the Setom through July 25th.

The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Thank you guys for that. I guess the first question is, when's the last time the 191,000 threshold was, was met?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that was, uh, 2017. So 8, 8 years ago. Okay. And then just so I'm clear, by moving this into the other district, the 191 would go away and you would manage the entire thing to the 7.6%. Am I correct?

That is correct. Okay. And so considering The conversation we had prior in regards to the 7.6% for that particular area and the very limited opportunity was kind of open there.

Um, the people that have been typically fishing in those areas, you know, and now that it's managed on that, there would— what— there would obviously be far less opportunity. If this happened versus what they have in place right now. Am I correct? Yeah, that's correct. 7 Of the last 10 years this would not have opened.

Thank you.

Other board discussion?

So I'm looking at RC 59 and I'm looking at the last page on RC 59. And this one, it talks specifically about the Dolga Island area and sediment. Sockeye harvest. And based on the pie graphs down there, we see— and I believe that this is based on ADF&G data— that in the Dolgoy areas in June, up to 43.5% could be Chignik-bound fish, 25.1% are Bristol Bay— and this must be from Wasup— and 30 percent, or I'm assuming that's east of Wasup, with only 0.2% being comprised of South Peninsula stock. Similar for July and August, I think the number climbs as you get later in the season to 46.5% of Chignik-bound, and then you start to see a larger percentage of east of Wasup moving through.

You see some Kuskokwim, Bristol Bay, North Peninsula, and South pen numbers that are pretty small in there, similarly for the Southeast District mainland. So I think it's an acknowledgment that there are a lot of Chignik-bound sockeye in that area in June and July particularly, but also into August. And if we're trying to recover stocks and, and we're trying to hit those percentages, I think that rolling this in will go a long way to opening all of these sections up and helping Chignik hit those targets so that these, these areas can be utilized for, for more harvest. That's kind of how I'm looking at it, but I'm interested in other folks' impressions. Miss Irwin.

Yeah, thank you. Question maybe for the department. I'm looking at RC 61, which shows a pretty dramatic increase in the number of chum taken out of this, um, the Shoemegan Islands fishery after the 2004 decision was made. I am—. My question for the department is, uh, are there local— are those loc— that amount of that chum, um, are there local stocks, um, that are being caught in June in that time frame, or are those mostly, um, non-local stocks?

Yeah, through the chair, Ms. Irwin. So there are local chum salmon streams there, fairly substantial streams. But yeah, in June, most of the harvest is non-local. Okay, thank you. And I guess, as I— if I refer back to what Member Carlson-Vandort was talking about in RC $59,000, it looks like a great majority of that would be Chignik.

Or is there a Chignik SOC? I'm sorry, I'm looking at SOC. I know I'm getting confused.

There wasn't a question there. Never mind.

Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think given Chignik's difficulties and the substantial number of of stocks in this, in this statistical region, I think it definitely would behoove the board to act in a way that would conserve and bring those stocks back in a much quicker area. And I think if this works as planned and those statistics play out, we will see a much quicker opening of these areas because Based on the math there, it looks like there's a considerable opportunity to get more sockeye into Chignik Bay.

Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Wood. I could have— this discussion is helpful because I could have gone either way on this, but I think the chair and Mr. Chamberlain make good points. And so I'm inclined to vote for this unless I get compelled the other way with any other board members. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm not inclined to increase fishing time on a recovering stock that's so close to home.

So I'll be a no.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I mean, the things that I consider here, and we are talking about sockeye, past boards, this is an allocative decision. This is moving You know, this is a pretty substantial change, and I haven't really heard much discussion about the allocative impacts of this. But the other thing to consider, and I know that the Chignik stocks are rebuilding, but in my opinion, the sockeye escapements have been decent for sure the last 3 or 4 years.

And so recovering the stocks is very important to me in Chignik, and I want them to ultimately get back to the levels that they had you know, long ago, but taking away the opportunity that exists with the $191,000 allocation and putting it into the $7.6 million, obviously the department stated that 7 out of 10 years this wouldn't have opened if this was in place. And so I guess my question to the department would be, of the $191,000 that's allocated, and you said they haven't met that threshold since 2017. Can you give me a range of what the harvest was specific to that 191,000 allocation number? Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, so this plan was enacted in 2016. And the first 2 years of the plan, the sockeye harvest was 493,000 and then 283,000.

Certain areas close and then are allowed to reopen.

However, in 2018, persane was removed as a legal gear type from this area, so persane can't fish this area until July.

And after, after that, from 2018, the harvest has ranged from 24,000 to 125,000. Thank you for that. You know, on the low, low end of that, that's a very, very low number compared to the allocation that's in place right now. And even the higher number of harvests there is well below, you know, it's probably close to, you know, it's about 50% almost. So I mean, unless somebody can come up with some really good way of convincing me otherwise, I think this is a very dramatic.

Departure from past board's decisions. And I know we can't be held to those standards, but I haven't really heard a good reason based on escapement, loss of opportunity, and really significant allocation, um, that is affecting people here. Mr. Godfrey. Well, I think that, uh, Board Member Carpenter makes good points, and Now, in referencing RC-199, part of it would be echoing what the department just said. The same fleet's not allowed to fish in the Dog Eye Islands section in June.

The same fleet volunteered to do this. And as far as the 191 sockeye cap that he was— Board Member Carpenter was referencing, that's also addressed here. And in light of Board Member Carpenter's comments, I'm now leaning the other way because I find that compelling.

Sirwan. Yeah, thank you very much, Miss Carlson-Vandort. Thank you for the board members for a discussion.

While it might be the opinion of members that the runs have been of decent size, this board still has a stock of concern designation on Chignik, Sakai, and I'm wondering what the returns could have been if this was implemented. I know that the department says that 7 out of 10 years Sedum wouldn't have opened, but I wonder if fishing behaviors were changed and something like this were in place, I wonder if those numbers would be different. And so considering those pieces and the fact that there's still a stock of concern designation for Chignik, I'm inclined to to support this proposal at this time.

The reason, as I see it, why they didn't fish the last 7 out of 10 years beginning in 2018 was because of the dramatic crash of the sockeye in the Chignik District. 2018 Was unprecedented, as I recall. Am I wrong?

Yeah, Madam Chair, 2018 was a very poor return to Chignik. I believe the harvest was 128 fish, sockeye. That's right. So in 2018 and 2020, neither the early nor the late run met its escapement goals, which resulted in the closures of the federal waters for the subsistence and the, you know, and also the state subsistence harvest. In recent years, the early and late runs have done better.

I mean, they've— we've talked about that, that they've escaped more fish, and I would attribute that largely to limitations that were put on, obviously, the fishermen in the Chignik Management Area, but also to limitations that were put on Area M, and I think that was acknowledged in past board actions with respect to— I can't remember if it was Proposal 104 or 140, and also Proposal 282, and maybe it was 104. I can't remember the exact numbers from 2003.

And again, in 2019, the early run did not meet its escapement goals, which again resulted in those closures. So you're seeing a pattern since 2017 as it relates to the Chignik sockeye. In 2018, federal subsistence users— state and federal subsistence users, I might add— testified that they voluntarily stood down from harvesting any subsistence fish to help the early and late runs meet their escapement goals, and the Federal Subsistence Board closed the subsistence fishery. In the Chignik area, there were literal freezers that were empty, not dissimilar to what folks on the Yukon and AYK area have testified to at this meeting. As a matter of fact, there was a food drive in 2018 at AFN to help Chignik residents.

And that's when the Chignik Intertribal Coalition was formed. And through a grant, they bought and shipped food to the 5 Chignik areas during that winter and the spring of 2019. Were it not for that food, I think Chignik communities literally would have starved and people would have had to move out permanently. As it was, there's been significant population drops in that area because of the dramatic downturn in the sockeye fishery specifically.

So since 2002, I would also add, subsistence harvest of late-run sockeye have been below the ANS in the Chignik Bay District with the exception of 2007. So I don't really see that And I think that, that reducing that intercept in Setom helped to ensure that higher likelihood and will help to ensure a higher likelihood that the CMA subsistence users are able to harvest sufficient amounts of both early and late-run sockeye, as we've discussed. Um, with respect to the allocative criteria that Mr. Carpenter also talked about, one of the important things is the availability of alternative fisheries. And I was poking around the CFEC site And there's an Aleutian East Borough from 2024 report that says that non-salmon fisheries in Area M account for 72% of their fishery income.

Comparatively, Chignik averages 22% of non-salmon species. Historically, Chignik used to have crab, herring, shrimp, Tanner crab, halibut fisheries in addition to the salmon fisheries. And except for the salmon and halibut, all those fisheries were closed in the '70s, mostly due to unsustainable management and overharvested by non-area, non-resident fishermen. Halibut IFQs were eliminated, eliminating many of the local residents from participating in that halibut fishery. Chignik lost its crab, herring, shrimp fisheries.

It lost its winter processing.

Area M has hundreds of pink runs, local, in addition to many other stocks that migrate through Area M destined for natal streams outside of that area in the AYK. And we heard testimony that those fish are traveling. We heard testimony from an Area M fisherman that those fish are traveling. They're not happy-go-lucky resident pink stocks. They're traveling.

And I think that WASP indicates that they're— where they're traveling to and when. And that's some of the best data that we have.

The ex-vessel values are similarly stark in comparison. I would draw you know, people's attention to some of the ACRs— the RCs, I should say— that were submitted in that space.

And I would also talk about the importance of each fishery to the economy of the state and the local regions. Sodom is predominantly an intercept fishery on migrant stockeye, so I don't see where a change of harvest would really have a significant impact on the state because presumably those would be harvested in other areas, likely more terminal areas.

Same thing sort of with Chignik. With respect to the economy in the region, we heard a lot about that in testimony and discussion too. The CMA sockeye fishery is literally the foundation of the Chignik economy and critical to the CMA as the area is managed exclusively on those two runs. Set'em sockeye catch is relatively low overall component of the entire Area M sockeye salmon fishery. The recent 10-year Set'em sockeye harvest considered to be Chignik-bound was about just shy of 80,000 or 8.1%.

That's including those low years. So they actually exceeded their 7.6 allocation even when there was no Set'em fishery between '17— I mean, sorry, 2018 and 2020. And that fishery again was recognized and closed to protect Chignik sockeye.

The other thing that I would just note in, in the local sort of impact, economic impact, and this was noted actually in one of the proposals that we just talked about was the processing capabilities. There are no processing capabilities in Chignik any longer. The two shore-based processors have been torn down and abandoned due to fire and neglect. And that leads us to the question of landing taxes and where do they go. I think in 2024, all of the landing taxes went into Area M.

And the Chignik government has had essentially zero income through the landing tax of sockeye in their area. Matter of fact, those tenders sit outside the line just so that they don't have to pay a landing tax to the City and Borough of Chignik, which I think is interesting. So I think that there is a very significant impact to the local communities, and it speaks directly to the alternative fisheries resources as well, where there are availabilities of other fishery stocks, and that's evidenced again through that Aleutians East Borough report through CFEC.

The intent here is not to harm [Speaker:DR. LISA JOHNSON] [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] I see the salmon fisheries along the entire Alaska Peninsula as being really important to that entire region.

Chignik, in my experience, has experienced, you know, some really difficult years, and it has had a lot of impacts on the ability of folks to return and also infrastructure.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I don't want to see similar impacts happen in the Aleutians East Borough communities. I mentioned that I got a chance to see the Peter Pan plant and I thought it was a really extraordinary, neat plant. It had been operating for a long time. It reminded me a lot of what the Chignik plants used to look like, frankly. And I don't want to see them harmed.

I think that a healthy Area M Fishery is good for all the communities in the region with respect to barge service, air service, ferry service, the ability to have grocery service, fruits and vegetables, mail, all of those things. Um, each area supports the other in that respect, but the intent here is to recover and to give another historic fishery an opportunity to get back to their— some of their historic levels and to create or restore some more thriving communities back to what they used to be.

But certainly, as I look at the allocated criteria, I see other opportunities. We also heard testimony of the extraordinary research that is solely funded by the borough. That's amazing. I commend that. It's extraordinary.

I wish the Lake and Peninsula Borough had that opportunity through the funding of fish taxes from the area. And that Chignik would be a strong contributor to that someday.

So I'm going to leave some of that. I think I'm going to leave it there. I did want to speak to some of the allocative criteria as Member Carpenter requested, and also to the history of each of those personal use, sport guided, and commercial fisheries. I see very— both areas being very, very similar. They have long traditions of fishing in both areas, and I want to acknowledge that, but I think that this— the idea is to recover the Chignik sockeye stocks as quickly as possible so that everybody can go fishing like they did in the years prior when you see these extraordinary shares of catch in both of the areas.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you going through that and the criteria. I think that's important for the record.

But I just— I'm looking at this.

I was looking at the numbers of harvest in Chignik last year, and granted, Chignik should harvest as many of their fish as they can. I'm not trying to belabor that point, but if we're talking specifically about sockeye, they harvested 814,000 sockeye last year worth $4.7 million. Even if we take the range that the department laid out of 25,000 pounds to 120,000 pounds, the value associated with that, even if you used 120,000 pounds for last year in comparison, that might be worth $200,000, assuming that they're 100% sockeye. So to take an allocation away from somebody when they're having that minimal of an impact On the Chignik stocks, in my opinion, because I did believe that the Chignik stocks should have been delisted. I just don't see when you look at escapement levels and you look at value to fishery and you look at the extremely small amount of allocation that has been basically harvested between 10 and 60% of the actual allocation since 2017.

I just, I just can't support it the way it's written. Yeah, well, that allocation is low because there were no Sakai, um, and they were tied to the management plan. So unless you want to sever that entirely, I don't think you would see a significantly big difference there. Mr. Godfrey? Again, I'm going to echo where Board Member Carpenter is coming from on this.

I, and I appreciate what you said, Madam Chair, as far as the impacts historically to Chignik and attempts at recovery. And I do understand your expression of what the intent here is. My concern is having spent a little more time looking at RC-191 and listening to the discussion and looking at a few other numbers and the expansion of the Chignik Management Area, which was cited in there as effectively being 243 miles. My concern is not as much the intent, but the reality is what it would do to King Cove. And I think that While that's certainly not the intent, and I think you made that very clear in your statements, my fear is the likely impact to King Cove in light of the— I don't want to say nominal, but marginal benefit, at least based on what we're looking at here, based on what Board Member Carpenter said.

I'm not going to be able to support this one. Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for going through the allocative criteria and the history. I think that provided a lot of context to the board and a lot of lot, a lot to consider and think about.

I'm really thinking about what was mentioned about providing opportunity to rebuild the stock. I recognize Member Carpenter's points, and I understand why there's members of this board who are feeling weary about continuing to keep these sockeye listed as they have started to do better. But in this state, we are seeing dramatic decreases and declines of multiple species throughout the state of these runs, and it's not enough to just start hitting these escapement goals and barely meeting that. It's truly about rebuilding the stocks and getting more fish onto spawning grounds. Furthermore, when Member Carlson-Vandort went through the allocative criteria, a piece of it that really stuck with me, because I heard a lot in public testimony, is the availability of other resources.

And from what I heard, there are other— the fisher— many fishermen within the Area M fishery have different gear types, can fish for many different species, and can fish throughout many seasons. And as heavy reliance in the CMA is on this sockeye fishery, and given that they are still in an SOC designation, at this time I am inclined to, to thank Member Carlson-Vandort for going through the allocative criteria and leaning towards supporting this proposal.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. You know, I think the part of the history that you put forward really struck me because thinking about how there is no more landing tax because there is no place to sell your fish in Chignik. In fact, those places to sell fish have all of a sudden kind of dried up everywhere on the peninsula. And I think, thank goodness, there's still a place to go that— to— with your fish that will buy them.

And in some cases, you know, so you reap the rewards of selling those fish to those processors and having that availability. That is beneficial to a fishery anywhere in this area, whether from Nelson Lagoon all the way to Chignik. And yeah, so I think that's a pretty important factor in looking at this. I'm not a big fan of extending this area the way it's being proposed. And I do, I did have concerns or do have concerns over this, you know, the recovering sockeye, and think we should be really careful with that still.

But, you know, with the information that was presented to us, you know, recently prior to the work session, you know, the stocks in Chignik are recovering. Slowly and it's worth being super cautious. But I'm not, I'm not voting. I'm not a fan of this proposal. It just seems to extend itself a little too far.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm— I understand where Member Carpenter and Member Wood are coming from on this one, but I, I'm seeing a larger trend of of terminal fisheries having to bear the entire brunt of conservation on this. And I think when we're looking at Chignik in particular, I think one of the things they've been doing is operating on a very thin margin. When they do make escapement, it's not by a whole lot.

And that creates a lot of uncertainty in that community and within those— in that economy. I, having come from a terminal fishery that was closed in the '90s, I— it was devastating to me when, when my fishery was closed and I had to stop becoming a fisherman and had to sell out and become a lawyer. This is— and I'm looking at this, and I think one of the things we have to do is either have to adhere to the, to the allocative criteria and the mixed stock fishery policy or we don't. And I feel like lately the position is don't on this because if it's not, if it's not a local problem, it's not a problem. And I think one of the things we look at and hearing a lot of the local people where they've been so giving to other, other regions and other areas, I think sharing this burden is very consistent with.

A historical value, and especially when you look at the statistics in, in, in RC 59, a significant portion of these fish do come from the, the Chignik Bay. And so this fishery does have a very direct impact on this terminal fishery. And I don't know what more we can ask Chignik Bay to do. And even with their, their, their efforts, they're still barely making it. The way I always look at fish in this is it's an investment.

You let them up the river, you let them spawn, they come back in greater numbers later. If this works out, Chignik Bay becomes a viable fishery again. It can revive quicker and this trigger happens quicker. If we're doing this, they're going to struggle along for a generation, even more, or they may go away entirely. We're seeing communities dry up and die off throughout western Alaska.

I don't want to see this continue. And I— and yeah, when you have verifiable statistics and information like this showing that these fish are— a large portion of these fish are originating from Chignik, I can't sit by and do nothing. And I think we have— we have a sustainable salmon policy for a reason. We have a mixed stock policy for a reason. We have a subsistence priority for a reason.

I think it would be irresponsible of this— irresponsible of this board to ignore that. And so for that, yeah, I strongly support this.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department. I call the question. Questions on errors and omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 126. Carpenter? No. Erwin? Yes.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Wood?

No. Svenson?

Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against. Madam Chair. Proposal number 120.

Proposal 120, 5AAC09.330 gear and 5AAC09.360 Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 120. Is the proponent withdraw support in RC183? Second that. Now screen unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 120. Proposal 147. Proposal 147, 5AAC09.331, Gilnett Specifications and Operations. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 147 with substitute language found in RC 161. Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 161 in lieu of the original proposal. Proposal. Staff comments, please. Okay. This would reduce the depth of commercial drift gillnets from 90 meshes to 70 meshes in the northwestern Unimak and southwestern districts.

The department would continue to manage these fisheries in accordance with regulatory management plans and established escapement objectives. It is likely that salmon harvest would be reduced by using shallower gillnets. But the department does not have information on salmon migration patterns by depth in this area. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. Thank you.

Board discussion? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I'll reference a lot of my comments made on the previous gear reduction and my philosophy behind it. I wanted to pair this, um, with the drift with the seine and acknowledge that I know this is a hardship.

However, on the north side, it is 70 meshes, so it does the 70 meshes and brings it into alignment on both the north and south side, especially at a time of year when it would be most helpful for king conservation and chum potentially as well. Mr. Godfrey.

I'd like to offer an amendment to restrict this— the language in 161, substitute language to the month of June. Second. And the reason for that, Madam Chair, is the large portion of the non-targeted, non-local chum stocks have run their course by then. So it still gives the fleet an opportunity in July and August to fish their longer nets.

To the amendment, I guess, would that require them to have two nets then? In speaking with them, they all already have 90, so they would retain that and they'd be able to use it anyways.

So yeah, I mean, correct, it does ultimately. So they would have to alter their—. They would still utilize one of their nets, correct? Or get a new net that's smaller, right? Correct.

Okay, just making sure I understand that. Um, I guess my question is to Member Wood. I'm curious on your thoughts on this since part of the intent here is king conservation, which wasn't mentioned. And where, you know, we've heard from the department that kings are moving in July and August and a lot in July. Thoughts on that?

Yeah, thank you. I mean, originally that's why I just had a blanket, you know, straight across the board, uh, 70. It would match the north side as well as the south. And as to, you know, speaking to the amendment, you know, I haven't looked directly at the— you know, when I did this, it was mostly just like if you've got a 70 on the south and 70 on the north, more than likely you're just going to be fishing 70s. So I think the 90 would phase out anyhow.

If it's—. If the kings have passed through that are traveling by July, then, and they're not a threat, then I guess this amendment would make sense. But I can't say for certain. Does the enforcement have any concerns with respect to the amendment? Madam Chair, no.

We always prefer like there's consistency in the gear and from area to area, especially if they're next to each other. I mean, that's gonna be the preference, but yeah. Thank you. Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Godfrey, for the amendment. I'm not gonna be able to be supportive of the amendment As I'm looking at the genetic stock composition for the July fisheries, for example, the total of all the July harvests of Siwak chum is still 22,879 into July. And specifically, in addition to that, Member Carlson-Vandort's point about the Chinook, I haven't had enough time since the amendment just came before me to pull out more numbers, but those are from the 2022 July fishery study. I'm still seeing an enormous amount of chum and Chinook passage during the July fishery that I would like to still be protecting. But thank you for the amendment.

Other discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I guess I would ask Ms. Irwin a question, if she wouldn't mind answering. Is that specific to the gillnetters and the setnetters that harvested those 22,000 fish? That was total for the July fishery for Unimak in, in the For gillnetting in Unimak, we don't have a specific number for the coastal western Alaska.

We do have numbers from looking like Kodiak makes up a greater proportion of that in the gillnet fishery. And then in the gillnet fishery in the southeastern and south-central district, also looking at more of West Kodiak Island and Kodiak fisheries. So specific to gillnet, Mr. Carpenter, That number is— the CWAC number is smaller. Thank you for clarifying that. Well, I will speak to the amendment now.

I will support Member Godfrey's amendment, and I guess I will do it because I think there is a good reason, but I am going to support the amendment now and I will deliberate more on the proposal after it is dealt with.

Okay.

Any other additional discussion on the amendment? Question. Question has been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll on the amendment, please. On the amendment.

Godfrey. Yes. Wood. No. Chamberlain.

No. Irwin. No. Carpenter. Yes.

Svenson. No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair.

That brings the proposal as written in 161 before us. And I would open it up again for more discussion. Mr. Carpenter? Thank you, Madam Chair. To the proposal, I think, and I hate to do this, but I can read the tea leaves on what's going to happen later, so I'm going to put it on the floor now.

Comparing a setnet site to a gillnetter is crazy. Comparing a gillnetter to a seiner is crazy. They have extremely different harvesting potential. And so by trying to restrict the depth, 20 meshes on a gillnet at 5-inch mesh, you're talking very negligible.

Amount. The other thing to consider is when we've looked at king salmon conservation things specifically in Bristol Bay, in the Kenai, or the— in Cook Inlet, the places that these people are fishing are very dissimilar to both of those places in regards to gear, bottom contact, etc. So the amount of kings that are harvested in these two gear groups is very dissimilar to what are caught in other places in regards to kings. And so I, I'm just not willing to restrict gear groups across the board and try and put them on an equal playing field. I just don't think that that is a real rational way to do things, and I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. You know, I guess When I intended to do this, I wanted it to be spread across the board, both seine and drift. And when I talked with people, I was— many people said to me, it doesn't matter to me a whole lot because I use a 70 anyhow. It's either easier to pick or deal with.

And I very much agree with Member Carpenter's assessment of how a net is fished. Seine and comparing a seine to a drift is absolutely incomparable. And it's been then a drift to a set. It is absolutely incomparable because of how it moves in the water column. It's not just a solid sheet running down.

It's flagging underneath. And especially a set net when it is attached at both ends to the shore. It just— it's a flagging machine. Very ineffective really. Anyhow, but to that point, I was just going for consistency on the north side, the south side, and listening to fishermen that use a 70 on both sides.

I do know that a 90 will inconvenience some fishermen, and I, and I feel for that. But anyhow, leave it at that.

Any other board discussion? Miss Irwin? Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Member Carpenter, for clarifying and needing the distinction between those, those two different gear types. There is, there is a dramatic difference in those gear types.

It is unfortunate in some of the genetic stock composition data that we have, gill nets are included together, so that set and drift are included. However, there's been notations and significant understanding that there's a lot less non-local stocks of specifically of chum taken in the set fleet. But just in 2024, The— just in the Unimak District alone, the gillnetters took 43,000 coastal western Alaska chum alone. And I think that we've been talking about this issue and we recognize that there's a problem. And I think that when we are looking at how to allow some, some of these non-local stocks fish passage through while still providing opportunity, I would rather in times where we are able to reduce gear, as the Commissioner said, rather than get to a point where we have to pull the gear altogether.

So I will be in support of the proposal and thank Member Wood for bringing forward the substitute language.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, like Board Member Carpenter and Board Member Wood had said, the gear types are extremely different. I have sained, and I have set netted, drift netted. I've never set netted before, but I don't think it's apples to apples to apples comparison at all. And for the same reasons that Board Member Carpenter stated, I'll be opposed to this.

Mr. Carpenter, final thought. We're talking about 8 feet. That's what we're talking about here. Put that in perspective.

Approval of this proposal would result in additional direct costs for a person— private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 147 as amended. Carlson VanDort.

Yes. Carpenter? No. Wood? Yes.

Godfrey? No. Svensson? No. No.

Chamberlain? Yes. Irwin? Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal 149. Proposal 149, 5AAC09.331, gillnet specifications and operations. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This would increase the allowable commercial set gillnet length from 100 to 200 fathoms. The proposal would still permit the operation of 2 permit sites with an aggregate length of 200 fathoms. The total amount of commercial gear allowed in the water would not change from current regulations. However, there may be increased harvest in certain areas such as near terminal areas. There is uncertainty as to how much the catch per unit effort would, would increase, and the department would likely be able to manage these areas by reducing fishing time.

There is also potential to increase gear conflicts in certain areas of the Alaska, Alaska Peninsula. The department is opposed to this proposal due to concerns of increased harvest in terminal areas and potential gear conflicts. The department is neutral to the allocative aspects of this proposal. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to the subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses if the proposal is adopted.

For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This one's an interesting one to me because this would be an unusual diversion from things that we deal— have dealt with, with setnetters. When I think about the harvesting power of these very few setnetters in this area, it makes me really give thought to this proposal because I don't think that doing this is going to make that big of a difference, actually. But considering where these people are spread out through this area and the costs associated with fishing in some of those areas with very limited opportunity, quite frankly, and harvesting power, this would be a very nice addition to them. And I think it could make them, you know, more profitable. But I guess I'll listen to what other board members have to say.

I just— it is— this would be a departure from the way the board has handled set and enters around the state.

Mr. Owen, a question for the department. I'm sorry, I just am looking for some clarity on— would this be— this would be allowed in within what areas? Would this increase be allowed?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Owen, this would be for the entire South Peninsula. Okay, and then my next question is, um, the department says they're opposed for concerns of increased harvest and terminal areas. Are there any specific terminal stocks that you— that the department is referring to that they are concerned about?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Owen, nothing specific, but there's hundreds of salmon streams. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wood and then Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, thank you. You know, from a practical point of view, I can't imagine— I heard the proposer say that it would be easier because there'd be an anchor on either end, but with, um, In my setnet fishery, we are not allowed to have a net end-to-end, and we need 600-foot distance side-to-side. The idea of putting a net with that length out into the ocean with the currents that you deal with, the amount of strain and bow on that would be insane to me. I'm not sure how much more efficient it would be actually to fish.

So I kind of question the practicality of it, even though it does sound like it could be a time saver, or even the kind of anchor you'd need on the outside edge to hold it. But I don't really specifically know that fishery down there, but I'm not sure. I gotta— since it's being proposed, it must be, you know, a good idea. But I don't totally see it. As far as the catching capacity, It could catch more fish.

It could also catch more stuff just drifting around out there, but maybe it's a pretty clean fishery and you don't get— you have to deal with that. But I'd be curious to— if I know— to hear from other people. I, I'm not sure adding another 100 feet out to the end of it would really help you a whole lot, but if it would help the place and anchors only once rather than 4 times that are or twice, then I guess I'd be supportive. Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Chamberlain.

There was very little support in the comment index.

You know, I could come to this and be pretty deferential to, you know, a lot of commenters, but we don't have a whole lot of that for this area. And the fact that the department opposes this for the reasons cited is enough for me, you know, with considering what's been already said by board members. I'll be opposed. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think there was public comment about how much work it is just to keep the bull kelp out of 100 fathoms. I can only imagine how much chiropractors would make off of 200. Given the public, though, the department's comments, the public's comments on this, and the public description of how hard this, how physically labor-intensive this setnet fishery is to prosecute, I can't support this. I do feel for the setnetters. They have to put in a whole lot of work for their money.

I, yeah, I've run a set net on a river and cleaning, cleaning that thing out is a full-time job. So I, while I feel for them, I just don't think I could get behind this. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I'll just say one thing.

I don't think it's the board's duty to talk about it, to necessarily imply that it's our duty to look at practicality, quite frankly. And I guess the other thing that I would ask the department, especially when you're talking about some of these terminal stocks, obviously there's reporting requirements for set netters just like there is everywhere else. Would you be able to react to something if you saw it through emergency order, if there was a terminal area or discrete stock that was in play?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, yes, we would, would be able to continue to manage by EO. Okay, thank you. I'll go ahead and reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Thank you. I just— before I recognize the question, I was just curious about the Sandpoint AC's comments on this since, you know, this is in their area and their fishery a little bit. And they opposed this unanimously, as I see in their notes in AC 15-005. And the comments that the Sandpoint AC included were that this proposal undermines the historical nature of the fishery. It would allow new fishermen to outperform fishermen with historical sites by being able to set 900 feet in front effectively cut off a historical site.

I was initially kind of inclined to support this because, like Member Carpenter, I thought it was kind of— it was an interesting one. And if people— you know, setnetters are, you know, kind of a very different group than either Drift or Stane, although I acknowledge, like other members, that they are all very different from each other.

I'm going to defer to the Sandpoint AC on this one since they opposed it unanimously, as I see in their ACs. Now maybe that was changed in an RC that I haven't identified, but those are my thoughts for now. Mr. Wood. Thanks to the department. What is the aggregate length for Setonetter?

Setting that permit.

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Woods, aggregate length is 200. 2 Gill nets with an aggregate length of 200. Maximum length is 100 per net. Okay, so, so you get 2 100-foot fathom nets. So, so that this 200 that's being proposed in the, in this proposal would be you take your whole complement of gear and you just string it out in a line?

That is correct. Okay. Thank you.

I think that's problematic for me. Appreciate that clarification.

Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on proposal 149. Erwin.

No. Chamberlain. No. Godfrey. No.

Svensson. No. Wood. No. Carlson-Vandort.

No. Carpenter. Yes. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against. Madam Chair.

All right, um, let's take a pause here for about 15 minutes, come back and continue deliberations. Quick bio break.

All right, we are back on the record. The time is 4:13. We're going to continue with deliberations, and we are on Proposal number 150, please. Proposal 150, 5AAC09.331, gillnet specifications and operations. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Second.

Staff comments, please. This would amend set gillnet specifications to allow gillnet web to be single filament or monofilament in the Unimak, southwestern, south-central, and southeastern districts of the Alaska Peninsula. The use of monofilament may increase catch efficiencies of certain species of salmon, but is not likely to affect the department's ability to manage the commercial fishery. Use of monofilament may increase entanglements of animals such as seabirds and marine mammals. The department is neutral on this proposal.

Thank you. Board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Look, I know you could, you know, you can utilize monofilament in Cook Inlet. There is an exception, I believe, for setnetters, maybe on the Bering Sea side. I think there was a proposal from somebody at Port Moller, and I think the board allowed that to happen.

I just— I don't think the cost associated with monofilament is near the difference that it used to be. You know, it's— they're closer in parity now, so I don't know that there's a giant cost savings. Necessarily. And I think the reason that we took the action the way we did on the Bering Sea side, if I remember right, it was a slime issue. And I think the board was sympathetic to that plight.

And so I'm not sure. I didn't hear that as being a reason to do that in some of these other areas. And so I think for that reason, I'll listen to other people, but I'm kind of leaning no on this. Mr. Wood, then Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, thank you.

I'm familiar with using monofilament mostly on an East Coast fishery for shad, but it's pretty effective, super effective, and catching fish, they just don't even see it. And it does get rid of the slime pretty fast, and so therefore it keeps— it stays really clean. It's super— it a lot more brittle than multi-strand. It would be more effective at catching fish, without a doubt.

Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I'm not really concerned about the cost because this is not switching one gear for another. It's—. You—. It would allow it, wouldn't require it.

So that's irrelevant to me. Somebody doesn't want to use monofilament, they don't have to. Um, the department has no reservations. It wouldn't affect their enforcement. So whenever somebody submits a proposal looking to increase effectiveness or efficiency in whatever they're doing.

Unless I see a reason jumping out at me not to support it, I generally try to be supportive, and I will be supportive of this one. Other board discussion? Miss Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, this one's difficult for me, um, because I do, um, see the— it would be great to be able to allow additional efficiency in gear types when the opportunity arises.

I guess part of something I've been hearing in public testimony throughout this time too that I haven't heard come up quite yet is the effects of the fisheries on the ecosystem as a whole and other animals as well. Now in public testimony we heard mostly that's in regards to other species not having predominantly salmon in their diet and changing behaviors. With regards to this proposal, Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to dive into the research, but hearing that there's potential for additional birds and other species to be entangled and caught, other marine mammals to be caught in the web, I, I don't want to support anything that's going to increase additional unintended harvest of non-targeted species or interrupt those other portions of the ecosystem that are within our fishery. So unless there's anything compelling that my board members can say right now, I don't I don't think I can be supporting this for those reasons.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Wood.

So is there any difference in how those degrade, the monofilament versus the other, the web?

Where I'm going with this is You know, we hear about these death nets floating around. If a net gets away, and I don't know how— I mean, I know it's more likely to get away on the high seas, you know, than a set netter, but I mean, if those nets— yeah, anyway, maybe you can answer that question.

Through the chair, Mr. Svenson, we don't have any information on that. Thanks. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I'd like to point out that the King Cove AC, the Kodiak AC, Sandpoint AC did support this this, and there was more overwhelming support for this proposal than there was in opposition.

However, the Chignik AC did oppose it, and I'll leave it at that.

You can add the Northern Norton Sound to the opposition list as well. AC, other board discussion? I just— I'm struggling to understand the need for it.

To Mr. Carpenter's points, I'm not particularly a huge fan of monofilaments generally for a lot of the reasons that have been stated around this table, but I'm not wedded one way or the other yet. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yeah, this is more of an invitation to other board members to convince me Right now, I'm not seeing the need for it. I'm slightly leaning no, but I do like more efficiency.

I just, I don't know. I'm wary of unintended consequences here. And yeah, there's just not a lot I have to work with. So I'm looking to other board members to influence me if there is a bit. Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Swenson.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that, Mr. Chamberlain. You know, the more I think about this, The more I'm inclined to support it, and the reason is I like to be consistent. I supported that monofilament use in the Northern District of the Alaska Peninsula. There's very few setnetters in a gigantic area, and if there's any benefit at all cost-wise, more efficiency, considering the very little amount of fish these guys are catching, and to be consistent, I am going to support it now.

Mr. Swenson. Well, we're kind of been concerned about the kings and the chums. I don't know if it's that much more effective. How many more kings and chums are they going to be catching? That's my thought also.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. It is being asked for just setnet gear in particular. It is a little less expensive. It is less expensive.

It is effective. And I'm inclined to say yes on this proposal. I think given the opportunity to use it would be really good, really helpful for setnet fishermen. And especially if they are getting in algae and dirty nets, the time that it would save just power washing. I mean, a net becomes really ineffective when it starts getting gummed up and it can be seen.

And then you're taking it out, pressure washing it like crazy. And so anyhow, I think if that could help the efficiency, I'm, I'm, I will support this.

So I'm just looking at RC 181, which is specific to setnets. And to Mr. Carpenter's points about how few fish they're catching, I don't know if this is accurate. I'm assuming that it is.

Looks like the source is the FMR 2603, RIR number 4K22-01, and it shows the increase in sockeye harvest by set gillnet in the South Peninsula June fishery excluding Set'em from '79 to 2000, then 2004 to 2025. And it looks pretty significant. It looks like they're caught in '04 to 2025, almost 4 million fish.

That's 20 years. I don't know if that's how relevant that is, but it looks like they're doing okay. And then the next page is in the South Unimak June fishery. In 20— that time is about 1.4 million, just shy of 1.4 million.

So I don't know how that compares, but it looks like they're increasing their catch in those areas, including the Shoemaken Islands, I think is the next page, 2.324 million fish. So over time, it looks like in those sort of 20-year stratas that are being compared, it looks like there's a significant increase in their ability to catch. Sockeye specifically. I mean, I'm assuming that's without monofilament. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions been called.

Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 150. Chamberlain.

No. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Erwin.

No. Svenson. No. Godfrey. Yes.

Carpenter. Yes. Wood? Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against.

Madam Chair.

Proposal number 153. Proposal 153, 5AAC09.331, gillnet specifications and operations. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments. This would amend commercial set gillnet specifications to allow the gillnet web to be single filament in the Unimak Southwestern South Central and Southeastern districts of the Alaska Peninsula. The use of monofilament may increase catch efficiencies of certain species of salmon, but is not likely to affect the department's ability to manage the commercial fishery. Use of monofilament may increase entanglement of animals such as seabirds and marine mammals. The department is neutral on this proposal.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Can you describe the differences between this proposal and the last proposal, or if there is anything significant?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I do not believe there is any difference. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 153 based on its action on Proposal 150. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Before we do the— before I recognize the second, I have a question. So on Proposal 150, we are talking about Unimax Southwestern, South Central, and Southeastern districts.

And 153, it's talking about Northern District, Northwestern District, and all the other ones that we just talked about. My understanding is that we already allow monofilament in the Northern District. Is that correct? So this is duplicative.

Yeah, Madam Chair, as far as I know, yes. Okay. Thank you. So I have a motion, I have a second, requesting unanimous consent. Is there any objection?

I request unanimous consent. Yep. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on 150 because of the action it took on the previous proposal— or 153, I'm sorry— based on the action taken on 150. 151. Proposal 151, 5AAC09.331, Gilmette Specifications and Operations.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This would amend commercial set gillnet specifications to prohibit the use of 25 fathoms of seine webbing on the shoreward end of a set gillnet. This would effectively reduce the amount of gear that could be used by commercial set gillnet fishers.

The department does not have specific information on how the use of a 25-fathom seine web lead influences salmon catch rates in this area. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. Thank you for discussion. Mr. Carpenter, thank you.

I could tell you from a, a reasonable point of view, it's like if you were fishing on a sandy beach somewhere, this wouldn't be necessary. But when you're fishing on rocky shoreline where the tide's going out a lot and where there's significant weather, quite frankly, I think that this— I mean, This is allowed right now, and I believe we actually dealt with this at the last area meeting, if I'm not mistaken. And so I really don't see any reason to adopt this proposal unless somebody has a good reason for me to think otherwise.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, as it reads here, in 2023, this regulation was changed to allow a sane lead to be used on the shore end of the set gillnet regardless of depth. I think I think it's a really good idea, depending on just what the terrain under the beach, or if we can get you out past the zone where the waves are crashing to make it safer, would really help. I can't see, since it was adopted in 2023, I'm not provided any kind of compelling reason why it should all of a sudden be taken away just 3 years later.

So I would leave it the same. Vote no on this.

Other discussion?

I wasn't a fan of this proposal 3 years ago. I don't think I voted for it, but I could be wrong. But I think that by and large, we are starting to really stretch the definition of a set net.

And I don't— I am not a fan of that. This is starting to sort of become sort of a Frankenstein sort of definition of set netting where it gets sort of added to here and there in little bits and pieces and starts to move away from that, you know, in this area particularly. So I'm not so sure that I'm inclined to support this for the reasons that have been stated, but I also am not, you know, I don't know that the seine webbing is, catching immatures. I don't know. I wish I had better information on that, but we are starting to really, again, sort of stretch the definition of what a setnet is, and I'm not aware of seine webbing being used in any other setnet fisheries around the state.

I could be corrected on that too, but this, this is, this is strange.

And I appreciate the safety aspect of that, which is why I'm sort of waffling here a little bit because it isn't sandy, it is rocky, but that is— that's not unusual in SedNet sites around the state. So, Mr. Godfrey. As I recall, two people that I do recall spoke on this, one had cited the safety aspects of it, which I find persuasive, and the other was protecting his, you know, essentially protecting his set net because it was more of an issue as far as snagging his main gear, which also I find persuasive and compelling. So I don't feel a strong compulsion to oppose this unless I hear otherwise. I'll be supporting it.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, from a safety point of view, I can see why this would be super helpful, especially if you got a really rocky bottom, because in order to set the net, you got to go right into the beach and you're putting the bottom of your boat right on the rocks in the surf. So having a lead extending out in order to, you know, attach to that keeps you off those rocks would be super helpful. So I think— I don't think it's— in this case, yeah, you could look at it as being something that's actually going to lead fish into your net, but since it's attached to the shore, I think that's more very unlikely, and I could really see why it would be important to have it there for safety purposes. Well, my, you know, I think I see leads used off of the shore and seine boats and other things.

I, it's precisely what's in the name. It leads the fish towards the net. So yeah, and I'm just trying to reconcile in my mind here what this type of fishing environment is going to do to monofilament nets. If you know, if the gear destruction is a consideration here. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I consider that option as well.

But I will say there is precedent around the state for having leads. And I mean, Prince William Sound, they do have leads when they set net. And I think while the weather is very different, the practicality of the way they're using it in Ariamne and in Prince William Sound, I think is very consistent. I think it's based on tide, shoreline, the rocky natures in which they're setting these set nets. So I don't really see a reason to get rid of it.

And I did support it in the past. So otherwise, approval of this proposal would result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call a question. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions? Seeing none. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 151.

Wood. No. Godfrey. Yes.

Carlson VanDort. No. Erwin.

Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Carpenter. No. Svensson. No.

Motion fails. 3 In favor, 4 against. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I need to verify the way I voted.

I argued in support and I voted no. You voted yes. I voted yes. Yes. Which was the opposite of what I said I was going to do.

I just looked at the wording of it. I'd ask to Correct my vote. Do you want to read? I can, or I can just change Member Godfrey's vote to a no, which would then make it a 2-5 vote.

If it's purely academic, I'll leave it.

Mr. Godfrey, what would you like to do? If it doesn't change the outcome, I'll leave it. Thank you.

Let's just redo the roll call on this for clarity's sake. Okay. For clarity's sake, Mr. Nelson, please recall the roll on Proposal 151. Final action on Proposal 151. Godfrey.

No. Wood. No. Chamberlain. Yes.

Irwin. Yes. Carpenter. No. Svenson.

No. Carlson-Vandervoort. No. Motion fails. 2 In favor, 5 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 148. Proposal 148, 5AAC09.332, same specifications and operations. Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 148 with substitute language found in RC 208. I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 208 in lieu of the original proposal.

Staff comments, please.

This RC would reduce depth of commercial seine gear from 375 meshes to 335 meshes. It would also eliminate the use of a lead. And in addition, a maximum of 25 meshes of chafing gear with a maximum of 7 inches may be used. The department would continue to manage salmon fisheries in accordance with regulatory management plans and establish— Escapement objectives. It is likely that salmon harvest would be reduced by using shallower seines, but the department does not have information on salmon migration patterns by depth in this area.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal.

Mr. Wood, thank you. I'm just going to reference my— all my comments from Proposal 110, and not— which happened sometime, I think, in the morning. It seems like a long time ago. So anyhow, Proposal 110, I won't belabor the Thank you. I'm going to also reference my comments from proposal number 110.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I will also, but I will also put a few things on the record as well because I think it's pertinent to this conversation. Um, at least myself, when I try and come up with answers to this question, I look at the science, the studies, that we have in front of us. We've had the '87 tagging study, we have WASP, we've had relatively new genetic information.

And if you take the entire Siwak harvest or the entire chum harvest in last year's South Peninsula, it was about 155,000 fish. And if you apply What WASP found and what the tagging study found to that population, it comes to about 38,000 Siwak fish. And if you take the 4%, it's 3.8%. I'll even use 5%, which is higher than what the study showed. That's roughly 1,500 salmon that are going to make it.

And I'm going to use the Yukon specifically. Into the Yukon.

If you take those 1,500 fish and consider that all of them made it to the spawning grounds, and you— and if you look at males and females the same way, and there was a report that was provided to us at the AYK meeting in Fairbanks in November of 2025. And something that was interesting to me was that The range, if you consider all 750 salmon on each sex similarly, the range was 0.10 to 11.77. The average return per spawner is 1.49. So those 1,500 fish is going to basically bring you back 2,250.

And so when I consider that, and I understand the idea that every fish counts, I really do.

But when I consider that information and what is— what has been done at this meeting so far and what is obviously probably getting ready to be done right now, that is very pertinent information.

And so I don't want to belabor this anymore, so I'm going to stop. But I really hope board members consider that. Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Member Carlson-Vandort. In regards to the continued conversation that this will lead to, I want to recognize that those 2025 numbers are quite low, Mr. Carpenter, and I appreciate the, the math that you did.

But we have hard numbers from 2022 which says 95 95,000 sea whack chum was total— was it taken in total in the area and fishery. In 2023, 58,923 were taken, and in 2024, 119,930 were taken out of the area and fishery. So I recognize the 2025 numbers, but I think we need to be looking at the entire picture if we're going to start pulling this data out. Thank you. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal would result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in this fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Seeing none, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 148 as amended. Erwin? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Godfrey? Yes. Svenson? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Carpenter? No.

Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against. Madam Chair. Proposal number 152. Proposal number 152, 5AAC09.332. Same specifications and operations.

Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 152 in light of its action taken on 148. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 152. Proposal 154. Proposal 154, 5AAC 27.610, Fishing Seasons and Periods.

For Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands area. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This would create a food and bait herring fishery in the South Alaska Peninsula from July 16th through September 15th.

This would allow commercial harvest of herring for food and bait in the South Alaska Peninsula area. Harvest levels would be established by the department, and commercial fishery openings could occur by emergency order between July 16th and September 25th. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. The department supports harvesting surplus herring when there is market interest. However, the lack of herring stock assessment in this area warrants a precautionary approach.

Given the lack of stock assessment information, the department would manage the fishery with a relatively small guideline harvest level compared to other herring food and bait fisheries in the state, likely 100 tons per district, as was used in recent experimental fisheries.

Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Godfrey. Thank you. I hate to be the one talking all the time, but so considering what you said, these are 3 separate districts. There's been a test fishery a couple years on this area, and I think one of the benefits to this opening of fishery and allowing some harvest to take place, there will be some tax derived from that, which will hopefully give the department a little funding to do some of this research and aerial survey work in this area. But considering 100 tons per district, is there any sort of conservation concern related to that number at all?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, we have none at this time. Thank you.

Quick question to follow up on that. How do you not have a conservation concern when you don't have any assessment? Forest Powers. Thanks, Madam Chair.

So while it's true that we don't have any assessment, formal assessment of herring biomass in this area, you know, our staff spend a lot of time on the grounds flying aerial surveys. And so they observe herring often when they're doing salmon surveys or monitoring the salmon fisheries. And so we see high abundances of herring in the area. And with the number, you know, relative to the harvest limits that we're talking about here, I mean, it's probably be like less than a 1% exploitation rate relative to the amount of herring that we see in the area. So that's the basis of that statement.

Mr. Godfrey, I wish all the proposals were this easy. This just makes sense. Any opportunity to provide to stakeholders for other fisheries opportunities to exploit other biomass. I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, most of the time we're doing the opposite. So I heard no compelling reason to oppose this during Committee of the Whole or public testimony. This is an easy one for me.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Chamberlain. Yeah, thank you. Um, so far throughout the state when this has come up in front of us, I've been supportive because it's, it's close to town. It's close to where the fishery is, as is this one. I also think that the 300 tons seems like it's a really very low threat amount to be taken from this stock.

Although I am, you know, I'm confident that the department thinks it can handle it. And given the fact that there's probably been just one commissioner's permit put out there, there may not be a huge amount of participation in this. I also like to say that the food and bait thing is so important right now just because Food and bait is coming from other places across the world that we have no control over. It's super expensive. And to rely on foreign bait to be brought in to put in pots or whatnot is really kind of insane when we have it right outside our front door.

So for all those reasons, I, I really like providing this opportunity, so I'm supportive of what's before us, unless I hear otherwise. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one I had to chew on a lot. You know, without a stock assessment, I have serious concerns about the ability to manage this, but With Mr. Bauer's statement, I, I'm leaning towards a yes on this.

Looking at the overwhelming support on this one, I think it's worth exploring this opportunity and diversifying this fishery. I think there's, there's, there is, there's some merit to this. And so I'm a soft yes on this. Couple questions. What is the timing of the herring presence in this area?

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Matt Keyes. We are typically starting to see herring, particularly for— would be for this food and bait fishery in early July. We have seen them during our amateur test fishery. We see them flying and we see them flying throughout most of our aerial survey time, which lasts anywhere from early July until late August, early September. We're seeing large biomasses throughout various bays in, in the whole South Peninsula area.

Okay, thanks. And I just— the reason I'm asking the question is because I don't want to unduly burden the department with an assessment program that's required to prosecute a fishery, and I don't want to create a fishery if we don't have the ability to assess it. So if there's congruent sort of assessment that's going on between the salmon stocks in the area at the same time, I guess that makes sense to me. But I just want to make sure that we're not adding to your budget, Mr. Commissioner.

Now we have the ability to manage this fishery in season. It's not a— not an additional burden. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for that.

And we know for certain that these are local stocks.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So there has been some recent work done on stock composition of herring in this area. It wasn't— the study wasn't designed like, say, the recent salmon genetic studies you've heard or been hearing about at this meeting, or the WASP study. Kind of had a different purpose, but it did provide some information on stock composition of herring in this area. And, you know, it suggests that they are herring of Gulf of Alaska origin, and they're likely not from Kodiak.

What about Togiak? So it wouldn't be Togiak, that's Bering Sea. Anywhere else in the Gulf?

[Speaker:MR. WILSON] No, they were kind of distinct from other Gulf of Alaska stocks. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER WRIGHT] Okay, thank you for that.

Any other board discussion? The reason I ask the question is because we've heard a lot of discussion over the course of this cycle as related to the proposal that we're going to talk about in a second about impacts on sort of other areas or where the local— the stocks are localized. I just wanted to get that on the record. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, just like that. Just in the big picture, the herring population seemed to be pretty healthy statewide.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yes, I would say just that's a fair statement. And as a broad generalization across the state, herring stocks are in a period of relative relatively high abundance right now. Okay, thank you. Mr. Owen.

Yeah, thank you. I guess I'll just get some thoughts on the record before we go into voting. I appreciate the conversation from my fellow board members, their perspectives a lot on this issue. I think that for me, I'm— I hear the department and I trust that they're They know what they're seeing when they're out there in terms of relative high abundance. However, I still am concerned that there's no official stock assessment and no biomass assessment.

I'm struggling with this because I see the benefit in providing this as additional opportunity for the folks in this region, but I think I'm going to have to take a precautionary approach and and, and not open this fishery without additional information at this time.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Any errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 154. Carpenter? Yes.

Erwin? No.

Godfrey? Yes. Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against. Madam Chair. Proposal number 188. Proposal 188, 5AAC 27.865, Bristol Bay Herring Management Plan. Madam Chair, I move to adopt Proposal 188 with substitute language found in 169.

Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, we have the language in 169 in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please.

This RC would allocate 10% of the unharvested Togiak Sacro Herring Guideline Level to the Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery if less than 80% of the Togiak Sacro GHL is harvested by May 31st. The department supports the concept of providing additional opportunity to harvest Underutilized Togiak herring. This proposal would increase the overall harvest opportunity on Western Alaska herring stocks. However, because all Western Alaska herring stocks are poorly assessed and biomass, biomass estimates have substantial uncertainty, relative stock-specific conservation concerns associated with higher overall harvests are unknown. Because the Dutch Harbor food and bait herring GHL is based on the Togiak herring biomass, the most effective tool in conserving mixed stocks of the herring harvested in Dutch Harbor if conservation concerns arise is reducing the Togiak herring exploitation rate.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this came from the board to this meeting, and there's been quite a bit of work that's gone on since the board put the proposal in.

The first thing I'd like to say about this is I want everybody to think about the overall biomass estimate in the Togiak area for herring. I believe it's 158,000 tons. I believe the GHL in Togiak this year is in the neighborhood of 21,000 or 22,000 tons. And it's been many years since any of it's been harvested. So there's no subsistence activities that will be affected by anything that we do today.

I'm quite clear of that. There was some concerns and we heard some public testimony from people in Togiak and other people. There was some support. I spent quite a bit of time, and I believe the user groups got together several times, and they worked out a more conservative approach to it. Originally, the proposal that came from the board— and this has to do with the exploitation rate, basically— the exploitation rate in Togiak is 15%, which quite frankly, that's lower than the exploitation rate in other places.

And so we kind of used that as a number, and the negotiation basically, or the groups when they came together, decided to be a little bit more conservative, and we, instead of 15%, we used 10%.

And then the other part of the proposal is that a lot of these fisheries, when 90% is harvested, that's considered fully utilized. And the, the people from Dillingham and Togiak felt that we should have a lower number in there to kind of protect the idea that if the herring industry in Togiak or Bristol Bay, which we all hope it does, finds a market or a way to utilize this massive amount of product, that there's a little bit of a safety net there. And so the, the percentage was changed from 90 to 80, and for the most part everybody was satisfied. And I think the main thing I'd like to really talk about here, and is that this is not a reallocation from Togiak in perpetuity to Dutch Harbor. This is if there is no harvest and it doesn't go above the 80% threshold, that 10% of whatever the GHL for that year, year is, can be moved to Dutch Harbor.

If this industry and if these fish could become utilized in a different way and harvested in Togiak, then guess what? The people in Dutch Harbor don't get that allocation that year. So I think that's a very important thing to consider when we're talking about this proposal. That's kind of the description of it. That's kind of the, the facts and figures.

And I guess I can answer any questions if anybody has one, but I'll just leave it at that for now. Mr. Erwin, then Mr. Wood. I just have a question for the department. We heard in public testimony a couple of species named— some species locals named, some species that heavily rely on herring and that they saw weren't doing well. But one of them that I didn't really hear about was the— about king salmon.

Do we know about the king salmon reliance or other salmon species reliance on herring?

Through the chair, Mr. Irwin. Herring are certainly an important part of the diet for king salmon in certain times and places. King salmon are, you know, opportunistic feeders that, you know, in some areas they eat juvenile pollock, other fish, sand lance, squid.

So yeah, herring are part of their diet that it probably at some times in some places it's more important than others and less important at certain times and places. Thanks.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, herring are super cool. They live a long time. They are small down south and they get larger as you go north and the Togiak ones are big dogs. I mean, they're like the size of pinks. And like we've heard, they've got a high oil content.

And it's— with the numbers that are there in the 158,000-ton range, they're impressively robust. My initial reservation over this proposal was just to make sure that Togiak and the Bristol Bay area always got first dibs. Prior to Dutch Harbor, and that I fully, uh, was made clear by Mr. Carpenter's statements. So, um, with that, I, I'm very supportive. I'm also very supportive of Togiak and Bristol Bay finding a market for this, because like I said, the food and bait, the carbon footprint on that right here in Alaska is way better and way more affordable than going all the way to the Philippines or Indonesia to get bait.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm— I don't have a terrible biological concern for, uh, this proposal. My, my concern is more economic. Um, what I've, I've been seeing is kind of a consolidation of the fishing markets over recent years, and a lot of, a lot of the fisheries tend to be consolidating in certain hubs, and My fear on this is if there's a market elsewhere, and it seems like this biomass is sufficiently large to support considerable harvest, and even 10% that may serve as an economic disincentive for the fleet or the market to move into Togiak and may provide, you know, in consolidation of a lot of the markets we're seeing right now, I fear that you may be starving out a community that has historically, you know, at the very least subsistence, but from an economic— depriving them of an economic opportunity for capitalizing on this.

I do have some concerns on that. I feel if the market wants to harvest Togiak herring, they should talk to Togiak about harvesting herring. Rather than reallocating it to a market that away for the sake of convenience and cost. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. I'd like to address what Mr. Chamberlain said and, you know, maybe ease some of his fears a little bit because I think market conditions and things that are going on with herring— the Bristol Bay fish are 400, 450 gram plus fish.

That was always a sacro market. The Sacro market for 450-grand fish is gone forever. And the unfortunate thing about when these fish spawn, they have almost the lowest oil content they're probably ever going to have in a year. And so when these fish are harvested in July in Dutch Harbor, the oil content is high, and so the bait and the food value is extremely high. There really is no market for food and bait currently for fish in Togiak in April.

But if a canned market could be developed or something else other than sacro can be developed, then I think that the safety net that is implied in this proposal is there. And I, and I would be all for Togiak and the Bristol Bay region getting that, getting that income and that the ability to harvest those fish there. But we just— it's just not possible, and it could be quite.

A long time before that is developed, but I hope not.

Thanks. I appreciate the discussion, and I think that Member Chamberlain did bring up an interesting point so that it— you know, this could be sort of the first domino to fall in an incremental creep over time, right? Once precedent is set. That being said, I also appreciate what Member Carpenter said, and I would take it a little bit step further, like, instead of it could be, you know, togjak, it should be. So if they're able to develop that market, whether it's a food and bait or some other market for it, I would be fully in favor of that.

As, as for what we have before us today, I am comfortable supporting this. I know that there was a lot of discussion. We heard this at Bristol Bay, took public testimony on it. We heard it here, took public testimony on it. And, and I I am encouraged that folks came together to develop a reasonable compromise that they seem to be both comfortable with.

At least that's my read on it. So I'm going to be supportive of the proposal for that reason. Ms. Erwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just put the rest of my thoughts on the record.

So I'm going to have to stay consistent with my prior vote. I believe not having a biomass study done, hearing some local traditional knowledge on the bearded seals being hungry and other concerns for ecosystem collapse if we're not careful and watch this fishery. I also just wanted to make a note that the Togiak Ace, the local AC, opposes this. It was the only AC or PC comment that we got opposing it. However, it is the local AC.

And my encouragement would be for the public to work with these communities before you put in a proposal. This happened at our Bristol Bay meeting as well. We had a another proposal that was for the Togiak AC and for the Togiak area, excuse me, from somebody outside of the region. And during this, this, these deliberations and during the board time, there was time where they were able to come together and make some compromise and have some discussion. But it's imperative that, that the public is talking to each other prior to us getting to this board meeting as well.

So I'll just leave it there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional debt costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department. I call the question. Question has been called. Errors or omissions? Seeing none, Director Nelson, call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 188 as amended. Wood? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Erwin? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? Yes. Stenson? Yes.

Motion carries, 2 in— 5 in favor, 2 against, Madam Chair. Okay, that rolls us back up to proposal number 107, I believe. 107.

Proposal 107, 5AAC09.XXX and 5AAC15.XXX, new section. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 107 with substitute language found in RC 209. Second that. And ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it RC 209 in lieu of the original language.

Staff comments, please. This RC would require all salmon caught in the Unimak District, Southwestern District, Southcentral District, Southeastern District, and the Bechevin Bay section of the Northwestern District to be retained, and caught would mean brought on board the vessel or shore. The department is supportive of this RC. Thank you. I'll give a little background on my thoughts on this.

So, um, I am offering this RC in the spirit of trying to collect information. Okay, this is not meant to be punitive. This is trying to get accurate information and to maximize some funding that we currently have available to us that isn't often available to us, frankly, that the department has really had to do some heavy lifting to get. And I would be interested in revisiting this at the next board cycle, or the next board revisiting this at the next board cycle to see whether or not it is effective or necessary still. But the reason I'm offering this is because I would like to get an accurate assessment for at least 3 to 5 years on what is being actually caught, particular to kings and chums in this area.

And I referenced the department's genetic study that they've started over the last couple years, and I think that that's This is great and I really appreciate, as I said during staff reports, the work that was done and the advocacy for the funding to do it. And I appreciate the fact that it was at least initially presented to us. My question to the department is how long will that— is that study designed to last?

Madam Chair, so we have We're planning 2 more years for Chum and 2 more years for Chinook. Thank you for that. And the reason that I'm including Chinook in this particularly is in looking at the sampling and the study design presentation that we had, I note that in the Chinook categories they were opportunistic samplings. And, and I believe that part of the reason that we went to full retention of CHUM in this area was to help make sure that we had relatively unbiased and adequate sample sets to be able to perform the study. Is that correct?

So I think you said CHUM there, and so Chinook is where— Chinook is where we used EO authority to require retention. Right. Fish over 28. And then— So in the, in the June plan, all salmon— there's already mandatory retention of all salmon. Thank you.

So I guess as to my point, you know, in terms of the Chinook, that I want to make sure that we have a, as comprehensive a sampling pool as possible to try and get at some of the Chinook while we have folks on the ground sampling for chum as well. And again, sort of trying to get the most bang for our buck for the sampling since there's a lot of conversation and a lot of consternation and a lot of disparity between how people, what people think about where chum and Chinook are present in this fishery and where they're headed. So that's, that's a lot of the spirit which I offer this is to make sure that we're getting a hold of the most unbiased sample set that we can. And that we're maximizing the ability to do these samples in the first place with the funding that the department currently has and to try and maximize the rest of the time in there. That being said, that's not the only reason, in full disclosure, that I'm interested in doing this.

I think that we've heard testimony all over the place about, you know, what the mortality rate is of a released Chinook salmon from, from Assain particularly.

And I wish that there was more and better information in that space, particularly with Chinook salmon that aren't in their terminal areas and headed back to spawn and the physiological changes that occur when they're in that areas or in those areas. So that's, that's why I want to offer this. I think it would be interesting to revisit this language. I don't like sunset dates. So, you know, that's why there isn't one on here.

But, but I don't see this as being chiseled in stone necessarily. But I do want to try and maximize the opportunity that we have for sampling for Chinook and Chum.

Mr. Swenson.

Well, I guess I don't like the idea of the kings being kept. Not everybody knows that, but I would offer another, you know, how about the dead ones? I mean, there's going to be dead ones. And those could be turned in and you could— those could be genetically tested as long as well as the small ones. So I think you could get plenty of genetic information by doing it that way, and for that reason I'm not going to be supportive of this.

If they are over 28 inches, they are currently in non-retention. Is that correct?

What's the status?

Madam Chair, so, so this year in 2025, we took the unprecedented step of implementing.

The Chinook caps. And so in order to make the caps enforceable, we use the EO authority to require that all Chinook be retained. Okay. So that's currently what's been happening. So this would just sort of build on that.

I guess it's kind of how I would see it. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. This is an interesting one. Been a lot of conversation over the last two area meetings in regards to Every Salmon Counts.

We have king salmon conservation problems all over the place. Yes, the mortality rate on kings is high, but Is a small percentage of fish returning, especially big ones, to their natal streams important? I think it is. I personally think that, and I understand the idea behind the research and the genetic work that you need to have a specific sample size to make the study, you know, work. But I just can't get behind the idea that this is a good idea.

And it's just, it's to me, it's kind of going against what everything that we're doing today and every position that everybody has taken on very different things. And I think I like to be consistent. I hope the state likes to be consistent. And, you know, I can point to two very specific examples where this is not the case. Kodiak, Southeast Alaska.

And we're going to do something completely different here. And personally, I think that there needs to be a better way to do this. And still be able to get enough information to do the research. So.

Mr. Chamberlain, Ms. Erwin, then Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm— I understand Mr. Carpenter's— Mr. Carpenter's position on this and Mr. Svenson's position. Every salmon does count. It's absolutely imperative that we get every one we can up.

But I think one of the bigger things that from a scientific standpoint, there's a saying, garbage in, garbage out. If you don't have good statistics and you don't have good numbers in a study, you don't have good results. It skews the results and your information you're operating on is either incomplete or just plain wrong. And so in the interest of that, yes, and down the road, if we can find a way to, and a means and method, and I think there is definitely an opportunity to discuss the best ways to release or handle Chinook salmon to maximize survivability once released. I would love to do that, but until we have something that, that shows promising results, I'm very reluctant to do that and skew our information on that.

So with that, I will be supporting this. Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. To Member Carpenter's point, I think that the idea that every salmon counts, I think that a salmon I think that an enumerated salmon that is leading us to more accurate data, more comprehensive understanding of where these salmon are coming from, is in alignment with Every Salmon Counts. And if we're going to discuss board consistency, I would really love to hear from my fellow board members why they are so opposed to the retention of king salmon here in the Area M fishery when we just voted a 7-0 vote to fully retain kings on the Nushagak River at this Bristol Bay meeting 4 weeks ago.

Mr. Wood. Well, that's a perfect segue for me. Yeah, I didn't— I didn't go to college. I just kind of do what I think I need to do to get by sometimes. And from a very, very common sense, practical point of view, a fish has a chance of living if you let it go, and it does not live if it's put in a hold.

That is 100% death rate. I have struggled with this new SGAC decision. I know the department doesn't support throwing them back. I know there's genetic information, but the common sense involved in this just blows my mind, and I think potentially we're killing more kings than we're saving. The Pacific Salmon Treaty out there that we that we work off, it's an RC 187, says Larshinook is— there's an immediate, like, rate of death at 28%, 51% chance of dying.

I mean, it's, it's like there's at least a chance. And so if I had to revisit that Nushikak decision, I would really— I'm— I wouldn't go that way. And, and I gotta say, like, in the process today we passed this whole suite of gear stuff to reduce the impact on potentially getting kings, which cost millions of dollars. And all of a sudden now we're saying we got to hold on to them all. It just, it just doesn't make practical sense to me that, that this is, this is the solution in today's world when everybody takes a picture of a fish on the side of a river.

The department He catches fish all the time in fish wheels and nets and releases them. This is not something new. And the fact that even that one study that we heard, 3 fish, out of 3 fish, actually one died immediately, one had a shark eat it, and the other one actually went 300 miles. What are the chances? That's not a study, that's just probably coincidence, but still, it says something to me.

So I don't support keeping these larger kings. And I guess I'll just leave it at that and pull my wits together.

Thank you. Appreciate the discussion. So I have a couple of, a couple additional thoughts. So I appreciate Member Erwin bringing up the Nishnaabeg vote. And in the spirit of consistency, we also have an example that was taken this morning.

In terms of the Chignik King Salmon Action Plan, where we required retention of kings on the outside and allowed for non-retention as they get closer to the terminal. At least that's my understanding of it. If I'm wrong, correct me now.

The other thing in terms of consistency To use the Yukon River as an example, and this has been controversial and a source of a lot of angst, I know, but to utilize king salmon for the sake of research of the ichthyophonous disease and its impacts on Yukon salmon, trying to understand what's going on with these, I think, is a reasonable— also to Ms. Erwin's point, concept. In terms of millions of dollars of impact and what the board has already done here, I don't know where that math comes from. It seems high, but I'm willing to take a look at that. But I also want to recognize that in the South Peninsula, we've heard from the department that there are no localized king salmon stocks. These stocks are going somewhere else.

And whether that's Cook Inlet Stocks of concern.

Kodiak, stocks of concern. Chignik, stocks of concern. Bristol Bay, Nushagak, stock of concern. Kuskokwim River, Yukon, especially Yukon I think, stock of concern. In the southeast, there's a lot more precision I think in the management of kings because of the treaty requirements.

So I would love to see that level of precision in terms of the identification of King stalks around the state. Frankly, I think it would alleviate a lot of the consternation and fights that occur in this room before this board.

And so my question then is, are we afraid of what the numbers will show?

Is this an attempt to obfuscate the data that we need to make more informed decisions? I don't know the answer to that. I am certainly not assigning or imputing any motives here. But I think it is a reasonable question to ask and it is one that I am mulling right now.

So that is the reason I would like— I really want to get more information. It is the reason why I offered the language of the Nushagak restricting home pack availabilities for that system particularly. These are not decisions I take lightly because I do think it's really important to get particularly those large returning hens on the grounds. But we need to understand more about the migration patterns, the genetics, all the, all the information that we can learn from the fish that we have the access to at this time. And that's where I'll leave it.

Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, I struggle too with this one a little bit because, you know, putting kings on the spawning beds is something we all want to do. But there's 3 things we need. One is we need.

Yeah, we need data. We need data on the numbers of fish that are captured in these fisheries. And the best way we can figure out what's, what's actually there is to have them delivered to a processor. Number 2 is we need a representative sample for our genetic work. And if we're not, we're not getting a representative sample, we can't then take that sample and apply it to the total mortality to figure out what's missing in terms of where they're going and what that contribution is to those different stocks.

And then finally, we don't know necessarily, for instance, whether a fish that's going over the side is a large chum or a small snook. So it's going to complicate the fact of the very issue we've heard a lot about is chucking chums out there. At some point in time, having full retention gets away from that. So I struggled with this a lot too. But at the end of the day, I weighed down on saying better data and prevention.

That, that question of chum chucking led me to believe that we should support this.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, maybe a question for the commissioner. Um, are we not interested in genetic information or in CODIAC?

I think we are, and I think we'll probably be facing that question next time we have a CODIAC board meeting. Okay, thank you. Mr. Swenson, and then Mr. Wood.

I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that all we're trying to do to get the chums and the kings to the AWAC, and here we are going to give them up.

Take the dead ones, you know, have them, you know, they throw the kings back over 28 inches. There's going to be some dead ones. Use those dead ones to get your genetic, and use the small ones to also get your genetic information. I just find it very difficult to be seeing those kings taken like that. I'll just leave it at that.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Carpenter, then Ms. Irwin. Thank you. Two summers ago, I traveled up to the Rapids Camp and watched the last fish wheel study the feds were doing on it. The ichthyophonous at Stan and Charlie and Kathleen and Ruth's fish wheel up there, because it was the last time it was going to be done, and understanding that those fish did have to die in order to find out what was in their heart and what was, you know, where the ichthyophonous was, whether they had it or not. And that those fish were donated and that went to a good cause after they died for that.

And they found out a lot of study, all that study has found out a ton about ichthyophonous on that, and now that research is done. I— you understand when you see those kings there like that, that they died because, you know, to figure out what that disease is doing to them. In this case, I just— I, I, I hear what the commissioner's saying, and I just— I grapple with it, you know, even as a setnetter. When there's a king in my net, that thing does go over. It keeps going.

Like, I make sure it's gone and it's doing well, but it's a different situation, I guess, than a seine. But Anyhow, I just have a real hard time reconciling this in my, in my core.

Miss Irwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to note that while the amended language is slightly different from the original proposal, I believe that the, the con— the intent is still in there, which is reporting requirements and retention of, of Kings. And when I'm looking at the, the main, the proposal proposal matrix, it's fascinating to me because it potentially might be the only proposal that's before us that we have— we have multiple ACs and groups from different regions that are in support of this. We have the Native Village of Unga, the Native Village of False Pass, we have the City of False Pass, the Kayukuk River AC, Grayling and Anvik and Fairbanks AC. And I would just like to refer back to the Committee of the Whole yesterday where concerned area and fishermen, again, on the original proposal, I want to be clear about that, but where I think the intention still lies is the camp said we want full accountability and transparency, so we support.

And so this is supported by multiple sectors and users among both sides of the aisle. And so I, I think it's something to be very pertinent at this time to pass. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question.

For— I recognize asked the question, I'm going to put my final thought on the record, that we have an opportunity here that we may not have again. We don't know what the funding picture for the state of Alaska is. We have funding right now. We have the staff dedicated to it right now. And I think it would be a real shame to squander that opportunity to learn more about these fish.

Again, it took years to get to this point. It took a lot of advocacy to get that funding. And I think we should use the opportunity that we have in front of us while we have it for a couple more years. And that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Okay, question's been called.

Errors and omissions. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. I think I heard earlier during deliberations a board member say that Kuskokwim River Chinook was a stock of concern, and I just wanted to be clear that it's not. And in fact, we've met or exceeded the escapement goal there every year since 2019.

Yes, and I stopped myself short right there, I think, because I did not mean to imply that Kuskokwim River was a stock of concern, but the Yukon certainly was. Question's been called, Mr. Wood. Is it? Yeah. Yes, please.

I would just like to report out or just record that what this RC is saying is that every that's caught needs to be retained. The proposal says that there's just marking requirements for commercially caught salmon retained for a person's own use. I don't see anything in Proposal 107 that says that every salmon caught must be kept. Okay, question's been called. Errors and omissions, we've got one, heard one.

Anything else? Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 107 as amended. Carlson, VanDorp. Yes.

Carpenter. No. Wood. No. Godfrey.

No. Svenson. No. Chamberlain. Yes.

Erwin. Yes. Motion fails, 3 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. And I believe that that concludes deliberations on Group 2.

We will start tomorrow morning at 8:30 to do Committee of the Whole Group 3. 4 And 5, and then we will deliberate on Wednesday, all of those groups. So if there is any substitute language being developed, I encourage folks to get it in by 8:00 AM so that we have an opportunity to have eyes on it and discuss it in committee. Thank you very much. I always— I almost said it was Kermit Ernie recognized first.