Alaska Board of Fisheries Finfish Supplemental Meeting on March 20, 2026 - Proposal 186 Deliberation

Okay, proposal number 186, please. Excuse me, Madam Chair, time to recuse myself. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Record will reflect that Mr. Wood has recused himself and has left the table. Proposal number 186.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, I'm Colton Lipka, the Upper Cook Inlet Regional Management Coordinator for Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 186, 5AAC 21-353, Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 186 with substitute language found in RC-161.

Second.

I'd like to ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it RC-161 language in lieu of the original proposal. Staff comments, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, RC-161 would amend the Drift Gillnet Fishery Management Plan by restricting areas open to the expanded Kenai section and expanded Kasilof sections. Additionally, it would establish maximum daily fishing times to 16 hours. Additionally, it would establish Tuesday and Friday windows.

This would include restrictions to the additional time, also limited to the two previously mentioned sections at run strengths for the Kena River in excess of 2.3 million fish.

And then for the later portion of the summer, RC161 from August 1st to August 15th, would amend the current 1% rule to a 3% rule.

Additionally, this would establish the 2-mile prohibition on drift gillnet fishing within 2 miles of the Kenai Peninsula shoreline.

If adopted, this proposal would reduce the harvest of salmon by an unknown amount in state waters of the Central District drift gillnet fishery. As such, this would likely increase the number of salmon moving into the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, the Northern District, and Northern Cook Inlet freshwater systems, subsequently— and subsequently reduce the department's ability to achieve sockeye salmon escapement and in-river goals in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. The restrictions in this proposal, or this RC, would be limited to State of Alaska waters. National Marine Fisheries Service administers a federal fishery management plan that regulates salmon fishing in the exclusive economic zone within Upper Cook Inlet. District-wide Area 1, Area 4, the expanded Kasilof and Anchor Point sections contain some amount of EEZ waters.

For the purposes of this RC, the only waters remaining that would be open would be those in the expanded Kasilof section, as this would remove District-wide Area 1, Area 2, and Anchor Point as areas that would be options for management of the drift gillnet Fishery.

For the department comments, the department has concerns about being able to consistently achieve the Deschutes and Little Susitna River Coho Salmon escapement goals and has managed all fisheries conservatively to allow for passage of Coho Salmon to these and other northern Cook Inlet drainages. Increased drift gillnet fishing opportunity in years with large Kenai and Kasilof River sockeye salmon runs exacerbates Coho Salmon conservation efforts. The department supports adoption of regulations that improve coho salmon conservation. Regulations and catch limits in the federally managed drift gillnet fishery in the Central District affect stocks independent of state management. Impacts of both state and federal fisheries should be evaluated in tandem when considering how coho salmon are managed.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this RC. Madam Chair, thank you. Can you pull your mic a little bit closer? Sorry. For some reason— there, that's much better.

Thank you. Mr. Spence, would you like to speak to your substitute language? Yes, I would.

The substitute language found in 161, RC 161.

There's been a lot of talk about how, you know, this is an allocation thing, and it really isn't. It's a conservation issue on 186. This is kind of close to my heart. I was born and raised here. I've watched the numbers of coho over the last 20 years just becoming less and less and due to, in my opinion, lack of conservation.

The problem is Northern Cook Inlet coho numbers have declined with increased use of Central District drift gillnet fishery to harvest large runs of kinai and Katsiloff's sockeye in the recent years. Coho escapement goals are not being achieved despite significant sport fishery restrictions and closures in area rivers. Management of the drift gillnet fishery has also been complicated by the federal management of portion of Cook Inlet waters in 2024. Revision to the Central District gillnet management plan are necessary to ensure effective conservation of northern Cook Inlet coho, and address unforeseen effects of record-large sockeye runs in combination with federal management of a portion of the fishery which was solely managed by the state of Alaska.

Fully implement— also, and fully implement the conservation corridor for northbound stocks. Now, staff has also in line with, you know, feeling that we need to get more silvers in northern Cook Inlet.

In this last year, the Cook Inlet drifters caught 87,000 coho. Drifters had their best year in 30 years with catching 3.5 million reds.

In it, in the, in their, uh, um, excuse me, and then, and then, and then, and then, over 30— this is their best year in over 30 years with 3.5 million red scot with an overall ex-vessel value of $30 million, double the 10-year average, while the Deshka and the little Little Sioux have not reached their escapements. Well, the Deshka in the last 6 years and the Little Sioux in the last 4 years.

9 Other streams also that are walked or flown by the department are also below their long-term averages.

This is also complicated, I think, by the fact that two-thirds of the population now live in Southcentral Alaska. That's 500,000 people. And that consists of Anchorage, Kenai, Eagle River, Girdwood, and the valley. So this becomes really an important part of conservation. The Sustainable Salmon Policy states that you can't overfish a weak stock while fishing a strong stock.

This is exactly what is occurring in the sockeye fishery. We're overfishing this weak stock because we're trying to catch more of this strong stock. There's been a lot of talk too about overescapement. Well, in the last 6 years, these rivers have overescaped, and all that happens is these runs keep building. So I don't personally believe in this overescapement.

There is some point, obviously, that you could overescape a system, but I don't believe that in this system that we have reached that by any means. Because you have Kenai Lake, Skeelak Lake, Tustumena Lake, all big lakes that can handle a lot of, a lot of reds.

The mixed salmon policy also states the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to their respect in harvest of the stock of concern. Well, This conservation burden has been on the northern Cook Inlet disproportionately.

I now want to— I want to read into the record, which is found in 131, the potential plan revisions. Eliminate Area 2 from state water regulations. Provide a This provides a conservation corridor through the center of the inlet to pass sockeye and coho northward. Number 2, restrict the drift gillnet fishery in state waters to expanded Kenai and Kasilof sections. These terminal harvest areas have proven very effective for focusing harvests on abundant Kenai and Kasilof stocks.

Third, provide windows.

Drift net gill net openers now limited to the expanded Kenai/Kasilof sections. These windows are necessary to reduce excessive catch in the northern-bound coho in years when the Kenai and the Kasilof sockeye are abundant. 4, Regular periods 12 hours a day as prescribed in current regulation. 5, Increase triggers for the season from 1% to 3% in combined catch in the state and federal waters.

This provides additional protection for the cohos when the sockeye run is effectively over. 6, Eliminate Area 1 from state waters. Area 1 is now effectively the federal portion of the inlet. Use of the remaining state waters in northern portion of Area 1 erodes protection afforded by the conservation corridor. 7, Eliminate the Upper Sakai steer in the drift management plan.

There's no utility in Upper Sakai steer in light of other changes. 8, Restrict, restrict gillnet fisheries to 2 miles from shore. This restriction is current practice to protect king salmon during the period of historic low abundance. And finally, 9, place in regulation the exclusive participation between the state and federal fisheries on the same day. This mirrors the federal management plan.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] In conclusion, if we don't do something about the Coho stock at Chris Cern, which can certainly be implemented next year, this could close the whole inlet.

Obviously, this wouldn't benefit any of the user groups—commercial, sport, or subsistence. And you see how the stock of concern with the Kenai has changed in the fishery. Finally, I'd like to say that we need to deal with this now before this happens, thus being proactive and not reactive. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stinson. Other board discussion?

I have a couple of questions. So, could the department please tell me, first of all, where we're at with the escapement goals of Cojo and the, in the upper, I mean, in the Sissetona, and Deshka, where are we at with those? I know you haven't— can you just walk through some of those escapement goals? It's kind of tough to read in staff comments because the shading isn't coming up really well. So if you could just talk about where we're at in terms of, number one, are there any current stock of concern designations, and are we on the brink of any?

Madam Chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler. I'm the sportfish management coordinator for Cook Inlet. If I had to characterize the coho abundance status in northern Cook Inlet, I would say it's below average in general. We have a mixed bag. So the last 3 years, the Deshka and the Little Sioux have not met their SEGs.

I think the board heard some commentary about the weirs being trouble to maintain through the duration of the season. Yokoh are difficult to assess in that regard where we have high water events. But I think the message is even if those weirs had been in place for the last 3 years, the department still expects that we would not have met the SEGs in the Deschka and the Little Sioux.

As referenced, we also have the Jim Creek weir, or sorry, 2 other SEGs, Fish Creek and McRoberts, which is associated with Jim Creek. Those have met the goal. That's your Fish Creek in 2 of the last 3 years, and McRoberts has met the goal in each of the last 3 years. In addition, we have those 9-foot surveys, visual counts that happen, you know, post-season, and those have generally aligned with what we're seeing in the, in the weir data.

In the instances where you have met the goal, is it by like a decent margin, or are you just barely making it?

Uh, so to draw attention to the areas we have met the goal in Fish Creek, um, and well, if I had to generalize, the 2023 and 2024 years were low, below average in general. 2025, We saw an increase, but still overall below average. So 2025, Fish Creek was pretty close to the midpoint of the goal there, 3,398, whereas the McRoberts was essentially in the middle of the goal for the last 3 years.

That answer your question, Madam Chair? It does, thank you. And then my last question, I think— well, maybe it's my last question, maybe it's not— do you think that this is a predict— productivity problem? And the way I would get that perhaps is an answer from both the comm fish and the sport fish side.

Is it, is it a problem with coho like we're experiencing with kings where we think it's an ocean condition issue? Is it an environmental issue? Is there a productivity problem? What is the, the commercial catch data reflecting? Are they not showing up in the commercial catch data, or are they there but for some— for whatever reason they're not making it back to their streams?

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. So if we use last year as the example, the commercial catch data was telling us that we were looking at probably about average abundance of coho. It was similar to what we had seen in previous years when we're comparing those indexes in season This is our main tool for assessing coho when they begin to enter the inlet.

We have another example in 2024 where those indexes were low, and that was apparent, um, well below what we had seen before. And we ended up seeing that around the region as well. When we're approaching coho for cook-in, that we do have some benefits and that there are some earlier indicators from out around the corner in other places in the state. So I haven't seen as dramatic of a decline when we talk in respect to the Deshka and the Little Sioux. And so going back to last year where we look at what we saw in Jim Creek and Fish Creek, that lined up with what we saw in our commercial indexes where Little Sioux and Deshka it did not.

Our additional information from last year was the OTF boat, which while that project is designed for sockeye salmon, we do also provide an index of coho. And in last year's case, the boat actually showed us what appears to be what actually happened with coho as far as a below average and earlier run timing for coho.

And I note that you had provided some supplemental information on coho genetics. And what do those results reveal? Where are these fish that were captured in Upper Cook Inlet? Where were they headed predominantly, or what is the breakdown of origin? Yeah, and so this information presented in two places.

We have within the staff comments 186-5 through 186-10, which is the previous genetics look. And then last year was the first year of another round of taking a look at stock compositions. In general, with the drift fleet, to summarize it, um, it's Northern District, Northern Cook, and Lakohoh that are caught by the drift fleet. It's about 90%, and that's been pretty consistent across time when we have taken a look at the stock compositions. Thank you.

So what I'm hearing is we're struggling to meet escapement goals In recent years, we have relatively average abundance of coho and that 90% of the coho caught in the drift fleet are northern bound. Is that a succinct characterization? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. And then Mr. Swenson.

Yeah. So I think the other thing that's missing here is we're— we basically shift to coho management in the Northern District fisheries. You know, for instance, we were very cognizant of coho, and that's basically because we're watching the escapement and the weir counts, and we typically are taking very precautionary management of that Northern District setnet fishery. What surprised us this year is, at the end of the day, we had assumed that the corridors were passing cohos north, but when we actually looked at the data, the genetics data that we collected, we were actually surprised to find out that there were a lot of Northern District cohos in those corridors. And because we were fishing the corridors more heavily to tackle sockeye, you know, we now have new information to suggest that we possibly should be a little bit more conservative.

We're trying to move cohos north in the use of those corridors as a tool to move fish north. So I think we haven't looked there. We've been using the corridors on the assumption.

That the corridors were passing fish north, but now with the genetic information, we have new information that suggests that may not be as, as, as good of a tool as we thought it was. Mr. Svenson. Colton, how many coho did the commercial fleet, the drift fleet, catch last year?

Through the chair, Member Svenson, I believe it was about 85,000.

Thank you. I think it was $88,000, but I forgot to mention that, and that's why I wanted to get that on the record. Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey. I'd like to ask the staff, in staff comments where it says what would be the effect if the proposal were adopted, in the first paragraph it says this would reduce the harvest of salmon by unknown amount in state waters of the Central District commercial drift gillnet fishery as such is likely to increase the number of salmon moving into the Kenai and Kenaik rivers in northern district, northern Cook Inlet freshwater systems, and subsequently reduce the department's ability to achieve sockeye salmon escape and in-river goals in the Kenai and Kenaik rivers.

I must be reading this wrong, or I just need this explained, or If you could explain to me how a reduction of harvest, which would lead to a higher number of salmon ending up in the Kenai and Kasilof, how that would reduce the ability to achieve escapement, or does that just mean over-escapement would occur more likely?

Through the Chair, Member Godfrey. Yes, so with the current situation in Cook Inlet, the drift fleet being the primary harvester of sockeye, We— it would reduce the department's ability to harvest those sockeye. We have had escapements over the top end of the escapement goals in both of those rivers for several years now. Does that answer your question? So it's the over-escapement is the problem then?

I'm just— it was the way it was worded was a little perplexing to me, but I just wanted to verify that that was what we're talking about here. Okay, yes, that answers it. Thank you very much. I just want to— Commissioner, we're not concerned about over-escape, and I think what the measure would be that we're concerned about going over the upper end. We haven't yet seen a loss of productivity with over-escape.

Thank you, I appreciate that clarification, Commissioner. I, um, my other comment here is my colleague to the right who submitted the substitute language I know as board members there's always a balancing act when we're dealing with any kind of allocation, but I'll remind my colleague to the right, a year ago in March last year, he said if he had it his way, he would eliminate all commercial fishing in the Cook Inlet. So I tend to look at this as not taking into consideration all stakeholders equally here and all user groups equally, um, in light of his comment a year ago, and I won't be supporting this. Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Chamberlain.

In response to my colleague to the left here, that was a misspoke, and I explained that to a couple legislators, and then they said, oh, now we understand. I said I was in favor of eliminating gillnets, not all fishing, commercial fishing in Cook Inlet.

Gill setnets is what I referred to.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair, and following my two colleagues to the left, if we're doing a set here. So what I'm seeing here is something that I'm seeing statewide, is a lot of mixed stock fisheries are intercepting a lot of fish going elsewhere. It's a hard thing to deal with, and what I'm seeing with this proposal is focus is is what I like seeing, is there is a very tailored approach here to isolate that mixed stock fishery, to harvest as close to the high productivity rivers as possible while not interfering with the, the more marginalized streams to the north. And I, for one, I live in Wasilla.

I'm 200 miles from Little— or 200 yards from Little Sioux. The Matsu Valley is huge, so either could be true. But yeah, being 200 yards from that river, in the 6 years I've had that house, I've yet to set a hook in that river. If I want to go fishing, I go down to these 2 rivers that we're focusing on, and I'm as often as not, I'm still practicing conservation while I'm fishing for coho. But I— what I really like to see is this, the effort here is being focused on these very high productive areas and leaves areas that are less determinant.

And the Cook Inlet, the upper Cook Inlet, is a prime example of a mixed stock fishery where you've got high perform— a large number of streams, many or a few are high performing and many are low performing. And it's a solid example of where if you put too much effort in focused on those high-performing streams, you can wipe out the lower end of those streams, especially when they get to a point where recouping that has efforts all the way up and down the food system. You know, the predators that feed on those fry are going to have less to go after. They're going to— they're going to go make a more concerted effort on those. And then you have compounding effects on the the distressed runs.

So with this, I, I think this is what responsible mixed stock fishing should be. I don't want to starve any fishermen out. As I've said time and time again, I— my life calling was to be a fisherman, and then my fishery closed and I had to change gears at 18 years old. This preserves commercial opportunity and then focuses on 2 extremely high-producing streams, which are a rarity in the state. And I think if we want to do this and we want to, to capitalize on the high-productive streams and, and give the other streams that are not performing as well a chance, I think this is a great example of how we do it responsibly so that we're making the decisions not that other streams are getting distressed to the point of extirpation and then you get, you know, we're looking at, you know, ESA challenges and then other people are making those decisions for us.

This is, I view this as us getting ahead of the ball game and I really applaud this and I hope the drift, the drift fleet is able to keep capitalizing and these rivers keep producing at high levels, because that is a very bright spot in a very grim state situation when it comes to the river. So with that, I will be supporting. Mr. Carpenter, then Ms. Erwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess before I talk about the merits of the proposal, I'd like to ask the Department of Law a couple things.

So originally This proposal came in the form of an ACR, which the board adopted. One of the primary aspects of an ACR, which I guess is left to each board to interpret, quite frankly, because I don't think there's clear delineation of what that constitutes.

So we have this proposal before us that this language in RC 161 is quite different from the ACR language. And so I just want to make sure the board is on firm footing before we do anything that maybe we shouldn't. And that's why I'm asking these questions. Does this substitute language go far enough past the language that was presented to the public in the original ACR that would cause us any problems? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter.

No, I don't believe at this point the notice requirements would be offended. I think the proposal was noticed up all the topics, all the areas, all the species, everything like that. I think that is fine insofar as the ACR process. I do believe, if I recall correctly, that the board noted a conservation concern when adopting this ACR originally. With the language that was proposed then.

To the extent the new RC language is no longer premised on conservation, I do want to note that the ACR policy in 5AEC 39999 subsection 2, that the board can still address an ACR that is predominantly allocative in nature. In the absence of new information that is found by the board to be— excuse me, I just misread that. I'll just say that the board can address an allocative ACR if the board does not believe that the conservation concerns that it considered at the work meeting are present in this new language. I don't see an issue with the board making a finding that there is compelling new information that is driving the board's consideration of this RC language. Thank you for that.

And I guess my second question to you would be, um,.

In light of the policy surrounding the board's ability to adopt an ACR where it talks about predominantly shouldn't be allocative, I understand that the board moved this proposal forward based on conservation. I don't necessarily disagree with that to a certain degree. But because this substitute language has now become very allocative, which is in a very different form in which the ACR was moved, Is there any legal jeopardy? Is there anything that would bring into question the board acting on this language because of that particular situation? Mr. Carpenter, through the chair, no, I, I think the board can make a finding now through this discussion as to whether or not the board believes this to be predominantly allocative, or if it still remains the board's intention to address this out of conservation concerns.

Okay, I just wanted to put that on the record so that we didn't have the public or anybody on the board question that. I do have a couple questions for the department. So this is a pretty dramatic change, and I guess my question is, thinking of allocation specifically, the changes that are reflected in RC 161. Is there any way to estimate what the potential sockeye harvest that would be lost if you use last year as an example based on the area that's being changed, the windows that are being enacted, the 3% rule that's included? Is there any way to like quantify that at all?

Through the chair, um, Member Carpenter, uh, so for last year it'd be about a million fish, give or take, possibly just pulling it off the top there. A lot of this will depend on how sockeye move into the inlet. The last two years we have seen a very strong eastern run pattern or they come in and they stay close along the coast. In any given year, through my best judgment, that would probably be the heaviest dependent factor on how successful these areas are for commercial harvest. [Speaker] Okay, and then I guess, if I can, Madam Chair, a follow-up.

I just want this to be put on the record. The last line in RC-161, which talks about the commissioner, This line is being struck, which is 5A.21-.363(e). Does— will the commissioner and the department still have the ability to adjust if needed if this is removed from regulation? And maybe the commissioner can just talk about that on the record. Yeah, so we've been giving that a little bit of thought.

So what this RC does is give us a prescribed fishing schedule with windows, which is done across the state, and it's kind of irrespective of, of, um, run sizes to a certain extent. And when we're sitting at these run sizes right now, this— you can kind of estimate what it does to sockeye harvest. The, the question that, that we're struggling with a little bit is what does this do when sockeye numbers are low? 'Cause we got in-river objectives that are set by this board to put fish into the Kenai River for different purposes. If we have a low run size and we have this prescribed windowed and hours of fishing, can I restrict those hours and prescribe times to meet those in-river goals?

And I just wanna make sure that we have that. We eliminated E. I understand why you might have eliminated E, but I wanna make sure that the board understands that I may— it may be necessary for me to take fishing time out of that prescribed schedule to meet a non-conservation objective, which is an OEG that you've established for, for the inner river fishery. So I need a little bit of guidance from you on that one. I understand I could do that under the umbrella plan, but that's— I don't really like doing things under the umbrella plan. I'd much rather have it in the, in the plan itself to make sure that I have clear guidance from you as to what you expect.

Because again, at the high runs it's not an issue, but when you get down to a lower run where you're trying to move fish in to meet that OEG, that could be problematic at the current— at this scheduled time frames you have. Well, thank you, Commissioner, for putting that on the record, because that is one of the concerns I had, and I discussed it with the, the proponents. Um, but I am, in my opinion, not just in this situation but in many, I'm not I'm not in favor necessarily of taking some of this authority out of the commissioner's hands. And so my intent would be, even if little e is struck and if this proposal passes, that the commissioner does have the ability specifically in the situation that he describes to still to be able to react if necessary. Other board members can speak to that.

I want to speak— I got a question maybe for the Sport Fish Division. When we talk about this proposal being based mainly on conservation, and that's kind of the reason it was brought forward. Have there been conservative— you know, I'm going to speak to coho specifically. We know what the commercial catch was, 85,000. Has there been any restrictions in either the sport fishery in Lower Cook Inlet when it came to coho harvest or anywhere else in the Cook Inlet drainage?

That would potentially be having an impact on the deshka, little sioux, etc., etc.?

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, speaking to the saltwater fisheries, there hasn't been restrictive action taken in the sport fishery.

The majority of that harvest happens around the vicinity of Homer on a broader selection of stocks than what you see in the genetic sampling in the Cook Inlet. Commercial fishery. The in-river fisheries have been restricted, speaking specifically to the, those weir systems that indicate that the run is not going to achieve its SEG. So typically what that looks like is we have our standard regulations that are in place at the start of the season, and generally by the first week of August, you know, about the 20th percentile of the run gives us ability to project forward what we think the ultimately the coho run strength is going to be. And so in the last 3 years, what, uh, how that has played out is we've taken restrictive action, uh, initially to move the bag limit in some of these systems down to 1 fish per day.

And then by, you know, basically another week of returns give us a little bit more information in which it's indicated that the, uh, those systems were not projected to meet their escapement goal. And so we've close the sport fisheries in those cases. Thank you, Patrick, for putting that on record. I think that's part and part of this conversation, you know, because if we're talking about conservation, you know, of course we want to put those fish into the Susitna drainage. That is important to me, as it probably is many people in this room.

And how we do that, I think the department needs to consider all reasonable avenues to make sure that that happens. So I guess where I'm at on this proposal is this: I did not vote to move this forward based on the criteria that the ACR— I just wasn't in favor of that at the moment. And part of it was due to the fact that the Cook Inlet cycle is this next, next winter, similar to some of the positions I've taken with other— with the Kodiak jig fishery. I just think that there's such close proximity to when this proposal, in my opinion, should probably be normally dealt with.

There are aspects of this proposal that I like. I do think fisheries— and most fisheries around the state, especially commercial fisheries— are operated with windows. I think that there's lots of examples of that. And so suggesting that putting windows into some of these areas is a bad idea. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

And I understand that the 3% rule, or the change from 1% to 3%, you know, I think that there probably is some merit to that too. You could pick a date and time to make it easy on the department, but I think that a percentage is probably more valuable in this situation because runs fluctuate and opportunity could be lost or gained based on that. So I think that that's a fair tool to use. I think the part that I'm really frustrated with at this time about this particular proposal is A, we have substitute language that I didn't get until this morning. This proposal has been out for a while.

People that are in the audience that came here to comment on this. In my opinion, and I try and do this personally, is provide the public with substitute language as early as I possibly can. Most of the time I try and do it for Committee of the Whole because we're not talking about the proposal that was originally submitted that people commented.

During the public testimony portion. We're talking about something very different at this time, and I think that the public process is lost to a certain degree in the ability for the public to talk about the merits of the substitute language because it was delivered after the Committee of the Whole. I think that I have a real problem with that part of the process, and so I would encourage the public and board members in the future to try and— and I know it can't always happen, but if there's time and it's a bit— the ability to do that, I think that that's an important feature that demonstrates the board's ability to provide that access to the public. So having said that, I'm not going to support this proposal at that this time, but I do like some of the things that are in the aspects that are included here. I just feel that it would be better dealt with in a normal Cook Inlet cycle, and for those reasons, I'll be opposed.

Mr. Owen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had some other comments, but Member Chamberlain spoke to a lot. My comment then, I guess, would just be my concern is that if we wait for a Cook Inlet meeting, that we're going to have a recommendation from the board before for us for a stock of concern designation, which will trigger an action plan, which will continue to trigger more and more down the line. And so I see this as an opportunity from the vast amount of information that's been gathered through this deliberation already with the amount of fish that were caught this year, um, the, the escapement numbers that we're seeing, and the restrictions on bag limits and sport uses that we've already been discussed. I believe that we need to take some action right now and avoid a stock of concern designation, which then would trigger additional closures.

So at some point, there's going to have to be some restriction when we're not seeing these escapement goals being met. So do we do it here right now before we have 1 or 2 more years of bad stocks or run sizes, or do we wait until that point when it's in a designation?

Commissioner. Yeah, Madam Chair, I just want to put one thing on the record too, is that North Council, when they set the tax this year for the EEZ fisheries, which the federal government now sets, they had a tack in front of them when they came out of the SSC that they actually further reduced on a precautionary principle based on the data that we had. So they set a lower tack for coho than, than they had, than they had set coming out of recommendation. So all the different fisheries are being looked at to try to move cohos north. So I see that as a recognition that there is, there's an issue.

Director Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to follow up on Member Carpenter's question about the saltwater fishery, give a little context there. So I pulled the numbers from 2024 Sport Harvest Survey, and for all of Cook Inlet, including, you know, Ketchumac Bay, all that shore-based, boat-based fisheries, is about 4,400 coho. And that is a pretty mixed stock fishery, including hatchery fish, specifically from Upper Cook Inlet, like Gore Point North, Anchor Point North, Anchor Point North, uh, the harvest, uh, was about 1,500.

It's, it's a pretty low— not a lot of people go out there to, to fish for coho typically in the saltwater, but there is a, there is harvest out there, so I wanted to put that into context of scale for you.

Commissioner, just one last thing I just want to get on the record is that we've been managing the drift net fishery now that we don't have a set net fishery to harvest sockeye. And I think that— and we've been trying to do that with the corridors, as I said earlier. Um, I'm glad the board's having this discussion here because it takes me out of a position next year moving into that fishery and how I would manage that fishery now with the genetic information that we're having in front of us that's saying that Yeah, the corridors may not be as good as the tools we thought it was to move northern district coho through those fisheries. So I was intending this, at least this upcoming year, to probably take further measures to not use those corridors as much as I have in the past based on the genetic information. So given the implications of, of what that means, I'm glad you're having this discussion now.

Mr. Simpson. No.

My comments, and I've, I've listened to the discussion and I put my— I did vote in favor of this ACR for the conservation reasons that we've discussed already. I tend to agree with Member Irwin's comments that the board has gotten into this pattern, certainly in my tenure of of stock of concern designations, followed by action plans, which procedurally in and of themselves are problematic based on sometimes the timing of the meetings. Ergo, that we're looking at UConn stuff right now. That's something the commissioner and I have talked about, and I'd like to continue to talk about in the process committee later this spring. But it kind of then boxes in the department's flexibility and also access for the various user groups.

So I think we have an opportunity to try and get ahead of it a little bit here. And I appreciate that sometimes with a conservation focus, there can be allocative consequences. But for me, the focus is on avoiding future problems and compounding future problems with coho not meeting their escapement goals.

You need those fish up there to be able to create more fish. And again, I think that we have an opportunity kind of to try and get ahead of that curve a little bit. Maybe me waiting another year would make a difference, maybe it wouldn't. There's— this is also a unique situation that's compounded by the EEZ component. But I think that if the federal fishery managers are lowering the tack, that is also a recognition, as we just discussed, that there's, there's a potential real problem that's going to continue to brew and potentially get out of our ability to address.

So I think I'm leaning in being supportive of this. Mr. Svenson. I just have one last comment. Conservation and allocation become really closely mixed in many, many constraints. But you can't have an allocation without conservation.

So that's what I think is the issue here. I'll also just kind of note here in the existing language that there's kind of something a little funky. That I see under D1 on the— on page 1, where it's describing a regular fishing period that's more than 12 hours. And I think that that's a mistake. Colton, could you— a regular— do we need to make a change to make sure that that's consistent language in reg?

Madam Chair, yes, this was a discussion that was occurring before that there were board members looking at amending that to a 12-hour regular period. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. And just so I'm clear, Colton, that would be in D1 that the adjustment would have to be made, correct? From 11 PM to 7 PM in both places? Through the chair, Member Carpenter.

Yes, so it would read regular fishing periods are from 7 AM Monday until 7 PM Monday and from 7 AM Thursday until 7 PM Thursday. Additional time was warranted, that could be up to 16 hours per that day. Okay, so stating that and just making sure we give the department the correct guidance, if this were to pass, I would, I would move to amend the language found in RC 161, number D, or letter D, number 1, to read: Regular fishing periods are from 7:00 AM Monday until 7:00 PM Monday and from 7 AM Thursday until 7 PM Thursday. Second.

I'm sorry, and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved. Which brings the amended language before us. Is there any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I, I guess maybe this is a question for the commissioner because We now have this EEZ fishery in the middle of Cook Inlet, which has complicated this greatly for all of us, quite frankly.

I'm not a real big fan of how the council sets a tack similar to something that they do for a peacock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. But having said that, if the board were to pass this and we were to have let's say potential of— there's going to be lost harvest opportunity for sockeye. Is there a risk that the council would, in the future, would change the restrictive nature in which they set the sockeye harvest, or the TAC, for the EEZ? And if they did do that, would that.

Potentially, and most likely I would think would be the word, increase the harvest of coho in the EEZ where the TAC could be met and the EEZ fishery would close. Commissioner, through the chair, so I think they're facing the very similar kinds of discussions you're having about weak stock management. The TAC is fairly high for sockeye salmon in that EEZ fishery, but the TAC for coho is low. So there is a potential that they could reach the TAC for coho and lose some harvest opportunity for sockeye out in that fishery. They're going to go through that every year.

They're going to look at the data and the scientists will make a decision that they bring forward. And then the managers will, will take a look at that and decide whether they want to add buffers on top of it. But that's an annual basis. The fishery management regime is set under the Fishery Management Plan. So it would be very hard for them to grant additional opportunity outside that without a plan change.

Thanks. Appreciate that discussion because it brings forth the graph in 86-3, and that was also presented to us in RC 20. And I think that that's kind of supportive of it. So I would— I mean, if I were one in the middle and I had a high tack on sockeye and a lower tack on coho, I would be concentrating my effort in the EEZ in the, you know, the time period between about July 4th and July 19th-ish.

And to a point that came up, I think it was in committee, looking for additional time to harvest sockeye, which is predominantly sockeye, before the coho show up and trying to avoid those coho. And they were looking for potential for additional time periods in that time where we see sockeye peaks, approaching the sockeye peak and stocks building in the inlet. And so I think that that is a really relevant and ripe discussion that I would like to have next year in cycle. But it's not necessarily relevant, or not as relevant I should say, to the conservation issue related to COHO before us, but I think that that is something I would like to look at and would encourage folks before the deadline to maybe create some language or some things for the board to consider in that space for next year. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I read cost and call the question, I do think it is important because I do think this is a highly allocated proposal. I am not in support of the proposal, but I do think it's important to put some of that on the record. I think in the allocation statute, the history of personal use sport guide and commercial fishery in this area, I don't think that any of those goes without question. And so I think that that's important for the board to consider.

I think the other parts of the allocation criteria were the importance of this fishery and the sport fishery to the state of Alaska. Is very important. And, you know, while making decisions that are going to affect local economies potentially, I think that the board should take that into account. And then the other part of it is the importance of the economy in the region or location which the fishery is located. I mean, there will be a significant amount of lost harvest to the commercial fleet, specifically with sockeye.

And the very nature in which industry is consolidated and loss of opportunity for certain regions to be able to sell their product, this is definitely going to have an impact on that. And so I just, I just think that those are important points to raise and put on the record before we vote. 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 That's all the question. Commissioner?

Yeah, I just have one question to ask staff. So according to this plan, it basically says additional fishing periods may be granted when it runs strengths greater than 2.3 million sockeye salmon in the Kenai River. What's our— do we have a run projection yet for the Kenai River for this year?

Through the chair, Mr. Commissioner, um, yes, for the forecast for sockeye for Kenai this year, we're looking at about 4. 4 Or 5 million. Okay. And the reason I ask that question is get back at the question that I asked earlier.

If we had a poor run strength, I would want to basically come to the board. So we will think through some language, bring to the regular Cook Inlet board meeting to address the issue that I raised earlier, which is what happens if you have something under 2.3 and you're not meeting the OEG? Do I have to follow this prescribed fishing plan? But we can— we're not— that's not facing us this next year. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Commissioner. And I would echo Member Carpenter's intent. With respect to that. And I would also reference AAC— what is it— 21.363.6E, which is that authority in the umbrella plan.

And the last part of that basically establishes the, the commissioner's authority and says AS1605.0060 to achieve— it's essentially your authorities to achieve escapement goals for the management plans as the primary management objective and for the purposes of the subsection, escapement goals includes in-river goals, biological escapement goals, and sustainable escapement goals, and optimal escapement goals as defined in yada yada yada. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear for you. Any other discussion? Questions have been called. Errors and omissions.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 186 as amended.

Godfrey? No. Wood? Oh, pardon me, I should have crossed that one off. Chamberlain?

Yes. Irwin? Yes. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 4 in favor, 2 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 187.

Madam Chair.