2025 Board of Fisheries Work Session - Day 1 (10-28-25)

All right. Good morning, everybody. Welcome back. It's like we never left. And we continue the grand tradition of a windowless room, even though we're at the Denaina Center.

So thanks for making the change and being here with us this morning. Mr.—. Oh, yeah. Good point. Thank you, Commissioner.

You're up in the stakes. It's hard to go backwards now. Anyways, um, my name is Marit Carlson Van Dort. I am the chair of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Today is October 28th.

It is a Tuesday and the time is 8:47 AM. We have 7 of 7 members present. And before proceeding any further, I'm going to go ahead and let my fellow board members introduce themselves as well as staff. And let's start at this end of the table. Mr. Wood, welcome back.

Good to see you. Thank you, Chairwoman. My name is Mike Wood. I'm from Chase, uh, north of Talkeetna on the Susitna River, and I'm excited to be back for my third year. And, uh, welcome Miss Irwin and all the new staff that are coming in.

It's great to see all the new faces and the old ones.

My name is Jared Godfrey, live in Eagle River. Good to be here, glad to see y'all.

Greg Svenson, I'm from Anchorage. It's my third year, and welcome to everybody. Thanks for coming, and the new folks, thanks for serving, and we'll get on with it. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Tom Carpenter. I live in Cordova. Good to see a lot of the same faces here again. Hopefully we get through this year in order.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Curt Chamberlain. I live in Wasilla. I'm originally from Maniac and Bethel on the Kuskokwim River.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Olivia Henahi Irwin. I live in Ninana, and this will be my first Board of Fish meeting. Thank you to everyone who is in attendance. Thank you.

Welcome back to all members who have served for more than a year and a special welcome to our newest member, Ms. Irwin. I'm Marit Carlson Van Dort. I am in Anchorage currently. I grew up in Juneau and Chignik Bay, and I believe we'll go ahead and start with introductions of staff. Commissioner.

Yeah. Hello. Welcome back. Seems like we have never left. Got a busy board cycle ahead of us.

I'm Doug Vincent Lang, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. With me at the table, we have Israel Payton, Forrest Bowers, and who was that? Oh, George. George Pappas for subsistence. And I'll let them introduce our staff.

Mr. Payton. Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Israel Payton, Director of Sport Fish. And here with me today, behind me, I have Jason Dye, who's the new Deputy Director. He took Tom Talbott's place.

Sitting next to him, I have Jay Baumer, the South Central Management Coordinator. And then down here on the table, I have Nick Djokovic. He's our new research coordinator, and he took over for Tim McKinley. Thank you. Congratulations to everybody in their new positions.

Mr. Bowers. Good morning, Madam Chair. Here to assist you today, we have Carla Bush, who's our extended jurisdiction program manager. Bill Templin is our chief fishery scientist for salmon. Zach Liller, Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim area region research coordinator.

Aaron Tiernan, Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim region management coordinator. Birch Foster, Westward Region research coordinator. Mark Stickert, Westward Region shellfish groundfish management coordinator. Jack Erickson, Central Region Research Coordinator. Heather Scannell, Bristol Bay-Prince William Sound Area Management Coordinator.

And Colton Lipka is the Acting Cook Inlet Regional Management Coordinator. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Hey, good morning. George Pappas, Division of Subsistence Director.

And we have Dr. Amy Wieda, the Deputy Director, with us today. Thank you very much. It's good to see everybody, the public, Staff, members of the board, it's good to be here. Thank you. And we'll go over to the Department of Law, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Peterson with the Department of Law. And also with me is Eddie Lee. He'll be at this meeting and PCOD. All right.

And that wraps it up with Mr. Nelson. Will you please introduce yourself and your staff? Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Art Nelson. I'm the executive director for the Board of Fisheries.

And with our board support staff we have here at this meeting, We have Annie Bartholomew, our publications specialist. Next, we have Layla Williams. She's our advisory committee coordinator for the South Central region based here in Anchorage. And Natalie Romo, she is our Southwest region coordinator based out of the Dillingham office. Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody that we missed? Mr. Commissioner? Yeah, I just noticed that we have Rick Green with CFEC here and a staff member with him. So Great, thank you.

All right, just a quick announcement before we move into election of officers. Just for those of you that are here in the meeting room, as always, if you have trouble hearing, we have wireless headsets that will tie into the sound system and help you hear the meeting better. Please just ask any of the board support staff and they'll hook you up with one of those. And then also, as a friendly reminder for those here in the meeting room and for those of us around the table, table, please silence your cell phones, um, unless there's some, you know, hunger for donuts here later this morning. All right, with that, I think we will go ahead and move on to the next agenda item, which is the election of officers, um, the election of the chair and the vice chair.

And we will do both of these and then stand down for a short break to arrange the seating. Um, so at this time, I will go ahead and open nominations for the chair. Miss Irwin. Madam Chair, I would like to nominate, uh, member Carlson-Vandort for chair.

Second. Are there any other nominations for chair at this time? Are there any objections?

All right, so moved. I will now go ahead and open nominations for the vice chair.

Mr. I'd like to nominate Tom Carpenter for vice chair.

Are there any other nominations?

Mr. Carpenter, do you accept the nomination?

That's a, that's a yes. He's nodding.

Um, is there any objection?

All right, congratulations, Mr. Carpenter. Look forward to working with you again. Alright, I don't think that requires any seating arrangements, does it? OK. So let's talk a little bit about access to the board members.

So as board members, we are available to you for receiving added information. This process does not work without you and your assistance, so many of us often meet with stakeholders informally during breaks and both before and after the daily meetings. We're here to serve you and benefit from your input. Most of you know that there's a line called the sanctuary line in front of this table. Table, and we ask that you please don't cross that, um, during the meetings or the breaks.

However, if you do wish to speak with any of the members or somebody behind the line, please just notify somebody. Um, the board support staff is really helpful in that space, and, um, they'll come grab us and we'll come across the line and we can chat. Please keep in mind, however, that is during the breaks, both before and after the daily meetings, that we find time to read RCs, materials that are submitted during the meeting. Um, but we definitely want to take the opportunity to chat with you, especially since you've come all the way to be here with us. If you have process questions, please reach out to either myself or the vice chair, Mr. Carpenter, or the executive director, and we'll answer all the process questions that may come up during the course of this meeting.

Certainly, it's hoped that the practices of the board that I'm outlining will maximize participation in this process. And certainly we believe that an informed and engaged public, as well as an informed and engaged board, can only result in better conversation, conservation, and development of our fisheries. The Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are united in support of fostering a respectful workplace. We're committed to ensuring our workplace is free from negative, aggressive, and inappropriate behaviors. Harassment of any nature is unacceptable and won't be tolerated, and we appreciate everybody's help in joining us in this important effort.

In accordance with the Open Meetings Act, the board staff published a notice in the Alaska Online Public Notice System, posted this notice on the main website, and the meeting meeting website as its designated posting place and also distributed to a list of email recipients. I'm not going to read it, but the copies of the notice are available in the meeting binder on the back table. I'm assuming that's back there somewhere. Yep, I see it. Um, and are also available from Mr. Nelson for those who are interested in the complete text.

Public notice and agenda change requests were distributed to the local Fish and Game Advisory Committees and many other interested parties. Public comments were solicited and board members have received copies of those written public comments, I'm assuming. The timely public comments and on-time advisory committee comments are available for the board's use and are also available to the public again on that table at the back of the room. Copies of the agenda change request can also be found on the website along with all of the other written materials for this meeting. Copies of the tentative agenda for this meeting can also be found on the table at the back of the room.

The agenda is subject to change throughout the meeting. But we'll do our best to stick to it as, as closely as possible. We don't have a roadmap for this meeting because it's not necessary. We intend to go through the ACRs in numerical order. A note on record copies.

Again, this is a pretty practiced group, but we'll go ahead and go through it just in case. The board encourages the public to submit written comments on specific ACRs, i.e., agenda change requests or issues. Written public comments submitted to by any individual, the group cannot exceed 10 single-sided or 5 double-sided pages until the board begins consideration of the agenda change requests. At that time, written comments cannot exceed 5 single-sided pages or the double-sided equivalent. Exceptions to those page limits are only allowed if the information is requested by the board specifically.

Written comments submitted during the meeting are assigned a log number referred to as an RC, and with a number, uh, and is numbered in the order in which they are received. Written comments can be submitted through the board's website as a PDF or a Word document. A link to the comment submission portal is prominently featured on the page of our website where all of the documents for this meeting are posted. If you want to turn in hard copies of written comments, please do so to the board support staff at the end of the table. And also, please note that you only need to turn in one copy.

However, you should know that board support staff will not be printing submitted materials in color. So if you have something that you want to provide to the board and you want to have the board see it in color, please turn in 20 copies and then the support staff will submit that into the record and distribute to the board.

Typically, the record keeper will distribute RCs in the morning before the meeting begins, after the lunch break, and if there's an evening session, after the dinner break. This practice ensures regular distribution of all written materials to the board as well as proper retention of the board records. Clearly, you know, often there's exceptions to that, but I think we'll probably stick with that for this meeting.

If you have—. Certainly, I mean, just, just as a heads up, you have the right to submit up to the maximum number of pages of written materials. Just keep in mind that we're pretty busy during the meetings and may or may not have an opportunity to read everything, especially immediately after it's submitted. So please just keep that in mind. Be patient with us.

And that's a good opportunity to flag a member and say, hey, I submitted this and here's a quick summary of what it does and here's the RC number and please read it kind of thing. Certainly brevity is most appreciated and I'm not modeling that very well right now.

The board does not take oral public testimony during its work session. However, the board accepts written comment throughout this meeting as I just described in the RC process. Um, the work session is a non-regulatory meeting. However, at its 2013 work session, the board agreed that given the weight and importance of the decisions made on the acceptance or non-acceptance of ACRs, it was a good public practice to provide ethics disclosures. So with that said, uh, I think we'll go ahead and do that right now, and the board shall provide each of their ethics disclosures at this time.

And we will go ahead and start in the order in which, um, we introduced ourselves. So we'll start start today with you, Mr. Wood.

Okay, saving you guys the long one. So my name is Mike Wood. I live in Chase, Alaska, 5 miles north of Talkeetna on the Susitna River. I am a self-employed carpenter and do contract work for the Alaska Mountaineering School and Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions and other clients. I have an SO4H a permit in Cook Inlet and own Susitna Salmon Company, a small-scale commercial salmon business that supplies fish to locals.

I am the volunteer chair of the board of the— on the board of the Susitna River Coalition and chair of the Chase Community Council. My wife Molly is an independent consultant. We both received the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. I have a current hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses. Neither my wife and I are involved with any lawsuits against the state.

The board, or the department. I will recuse myself of ACR 6 because my decision could have a direct impact on my business.

I certify that this disclosed statement is true, correct, and complete. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Are there any questions?

Hearing none, thank you for your ethics disclosure, and you can participate and everything except for the H.R. 6 From which you recused yourself. Mr. Godfrey. My name is Jared Godfrey. I'm a lifelong Alaskan.

I was born in Juneau. My family was originally from the Kodiak Islands. I'm a shareholder of Kodiak Regional Corporation, Fognek Native Corporation, Uusinki Native Corporation. I'm an elected tribal council member on the Native Village of Port Lyons. I live in Eagle River.

I have two children, 21 years old and 19 years old. Professionally, I'm a consultant with various clients, primarily in the broadband space and economic development. But nothing pertaining to fisheries. My son participated in the commercial fisheries of Bristol Bay and Kodiak earlier this year as a deckhand. I have no conflicts to declare regarding any matters in front of the Board of Fisheries during this meeting.

Neither I nor any member of my family is party directly or indirectly to a lawsuit with the state of Alaska or any agency of the state. These statements are all factual and true to the best of my knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Godfrey. Any board questions? Hearing none, you can participate in all the ACRs today.

Thanks. Mr. Swenson.

Hi, my name is Greg Swenson. I was born and raised in Anchorage and married with one daughter and one grandson. My wife and I are retired school teachers and my daughter is an assistant principal in the Anchorage School District. We both receive income from teacher retirements from the state, PFD, CD interest and investment in residential rental income, and I get a stipend from the state for my service on the board. Neither I nor my immediate family have any financial interest in fisheries, or are we involved in any lawsuits with the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game or Board of Fisheries.

I also have licenses for hunting, fishing, and a private pilot's license. This information is true and correct to the best of my abilities. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Swenson. Any questions?

Hearing none, I rule that you may fully participate in the matters before for us at this meeting. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Curt Chamberlain. I'm— I live in Wasilla, originally from Aniak and Bethel.

My current job is Deputy General Counsel with Chalista Corporation. I'm also a shareholder of the Kuskokwim Corporation and Chalista Corporation, my village and regional Alaska Native corporation. I also control own a controlling interest in Neon Law Group Incorporated, which is no longer doing business and winding down. I hold an Alaska fishing, hunting, and trapping license. My father owns a commercial drift net permit for the Middle Kuskokwim that hasn't been utilized since approximately 1995.

Neither I or anyone in my family have any interest in any business or organization related to Fish and Wildlife or may be affected by any of the proposals before the board. Similarly, neither I, anyone in my family, or any organization I belong to are involved in any lawsuit against the state, the board, the Department of Fish and Game, or where the department is a party to the lawsuit. This statement is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Chamberlain?

Mr. Wood. I do. Mr. Chamberlain, I'm going to stumble through this a little bit, but before us are 11 PCOD proposals that will take We're not in that meeting quite yet. Oh, sorry. Sorry.

Just for the work session. All right. Apologies. Thanks. Yeah.

Any other questions?

Mr. Chamberlain, I rule that you can fully participate in the ACRs at this meeting. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Olivia Henahi Irwin. I live in Nenana, Alaska.

I work as the community liaison for the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association. I am a Doyon Corporation shareholder and receive a dividend each year. I am also an Evansville Native Corporation shareholder and receive a dividend each year, both formed by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I will receive a stipend for my service on the Board of Fisheries. I have a resident sport fish and trapping license.

My immediate family consists of my 4 siblings, only one of whom resides in Alaska, along with 2 aunts and 4 uncles who also reside in Alaska, none of whom are currently involved in any fisheries work or business. My Aunt Marie Monroe retains 2 commercial fishing permits for the Tanana River, net and fish wheel. However, she has not fished the permit or financially benefited since 1993. As I work for a fisheries organization, I do have a personal and financial interest with the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Organization. However, no action I take on this board will directly benefit myself or my employer personally or financially.

Neither I nor any member of my immediate family nor my employer have any affiliation with any businesses or fish or wildlife organizations any decisions that may be affected by the ACRs before us. No member of my immediate family, myself, or my employer are involved in any lawsuits against the state, the department, or the Board of Fisheries. I certify that this disclosure statement is true, correct, and complete to the best of my available knowledge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Any questions? Hearing none, I rule that you can fully participate in the ACRs. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Tom Carpenter.

I reside in Cordova. I'm currently retired. I've divested myself completely of all businesses, including limited entry permits and IFQs. My spouse is employed by the Cordova School District as an educator. I receive the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend, as do my spouse and daughter, and receive a stipend for serving on this board.

I hold an Alaska sport fish hunt license. And hold a Copper River subsistence permit annually. Neither I nor anyone in my immediate or extended family have any financial interest in any business which relates to fish and wildlife resources or belong to any organizations to which any financial gain can be attributed. There are no proposals before the board that will benefit myself nor anyone in my immediate or extended family. No member of my family or extended family is involved with any lawsuits against the state of Alaska or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

I believe this statement to be true, correct, and complete. Thank you. Any board questions for Mr. Carpenter? Hearing none, uh, Mr. Carpenter, you can fully participate at this meeting, and I'll turn the gavel over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Would you please put your, uh, ethics disclosure on the record? Yes, sir. Um, my name is Maron Carlson VanDort, born and raised in Alaska, currently reside in Anchorage. I'm employed as the president and CEO of Far West Incorporated, which is the village corporation for Chignik Bay, formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I'm also a shareholder.

I am also a shareholder in Bristol Bay Native Corporation and in Koniag Native Corporation. I receive a State of Alaska Permanent Fund dividend and purchase a resident sport fish license annually. I will receive a stipend for my service on this board. Neither I, members of my immediate family, nor my employer have a financial interest in fisheries. Similarly, neither I, members of my immediate family, nor my employer are involved with any lawsuits with the State of Alaska, the ADFNG, or the Board of Fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, this information is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Carlson-Mendort? Seeing none, I rule that you can fully participate in the matters before us.

Thank you, sir.

Board members, there is a memo on committees under the miscellaneous tab in your, uh, RC1 workbook, just FYI.

Okay, so yep, we're at the committee section where we do committee assignments for the new board, and we have a handful of standing committees. There's the Joint Committee on the Board of Fish, Board of Game, the Federal and State Subsistence Committee, the Habitat Committee, Hatchery Committee, Joint Protocol Committee, which is the joint protocol with the Board of Fisheries and the National Pacific Fisheries Management Council. There is a Committee on Board Process Management and Research Needs, and then there is a special committee, um, the Joint Herring Revitalization, which is comprised of both Board of Fisheries and CFEC. Members. And, uh, let's go ahead and take a break while I get some input from members about which committees are interested in serving on.

We'll come back on the record and I'll make those assignments.

All right, thank you. Time is 9:39. We are back on the record. We are still under our board committee portion of the agenda. Before we do, um, standing assignments, let's go ahead and ask if there are any committee chairs that need to give a committee report at this time.

I don't believe any met except for the Special Committee on Joint Herring Revitalization. Is that correct, Mr. Carpenter?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so about a year ago, the board formed a Herring Revitalization Committee to look at the different herring fisheries around the state, specifically to— most of the conversation revolved around the food and bait season in the fall. And there were some things that the board did and information that came out of that committee to look at some different fisheries. Kodiak was one, for example. Prince William Sound as well.

This committee was made up of user, users from around the state. CFEC was a joint partner with the Board of Fisheries on this. And so I don't believe that the committee at this time needs to stay on the books because I think that we've accomplished what we wanted to in the short term. And I believe that if we ever needed to take this up again, again that the board would have the ability to create this committee again. So unless anybody has any questions regarding the Herring Committee, I would move that we disband the Herring Revitalization Committee.

I'd second that. Okay. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so moved. And, Forrest, I— one of the things I just wanted to bring before the work session too is if the department had anything add about the status of the fishery and how it was prosecuted and just any updates in that space, please.

Sure, Madam Chair. So under the new regulations the board adopted, the Kodiak herring fishery is, is managed now with several seasonal components rather than just two. The first is the Sacro A season. So that's kind of the traditional Sacro herring fishery that occurs in the spring. That opened April 1st with a guideline harvest level of 7,250 tons.

There was— there were 2 fishermen that participated and harvested a confidential amount of herring. That season ended June 30th, and then one of the new opportunities opened July 1st. This is what we're calling the Sacro B season.

That fishery had a GHL of 1,987 tons and there were 3 permit holders and 3 processors that participated and they took 986 tons. So that was a new opportunity there. That fishery closed recently on the 25th of October. And so we're currently in what is known as the Food and Bait A season. That's got 1,410 tons available.

And right now there is one person registered for that fishery. And then there'll be several more opportunities later in the year with herring harvest available that's rolled over that wasn't taken in these previous opportunities. So I think, you know, there are a few complexities and nuances to this fishery that we haven't encountered previously. One is that in the winter, the Kodiak herring biomass, it tends to congregate in deep bays on the east and west side of Kodiak Island and where the herring choose to congregate kind of varies from year to year. And so there might be some areas that are open to fishing that, you know, may not have any herring present in them.

So that's more of, you know, just kind of an operational consideration for the fleet. You know, I think one of the positive notes about this is that while there was little to no, or little interest in the traditional Sacro season in April and May, you know, the Sacro bee season did have, you know, 3 processors participating when typically there's only been 1. But overall, participation has been lower in these new opportunities than we expected. So, you know, we haven't really encountered any problems or concerns that, you know, would rise to the level of the department, you know, submitting a proposal or an ACR to correct them. I think there's just some facets of our stock assessment that we're going to have to refine to work around all these different opportunities.

Thanks, Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, Forest, um, if I'm understanding you correctly, when you reference the two participants and a confidential harvest, not, not on an individual harvest basis, but in the aggregate, how is that confidential?

Through the chair, Mr. Godfrey. So Alaska statute protects— provides protection for proprietary fishing information. And the way the department implements that statute is that if there are less than 3 permit holders or processors participating, then we don't publish that information, because if you were You know, if there were two participants and you were one of them, you could deduce what the other participant—. Okay, that's what I appreciate. That I knew it had to be something nuanced like that.

Um, I just want to make sure confidential— maybe it's not published and for the public's consumption, but obviously the department has to know the data. So we— yeah, so the department has the data available. We don't make it public. There are cases where, particularly with an experimental fishery, like where we would issue an experimental permit, we make waiver of confidentiality a condition of that permit. But since this is not an experimental fishery, it's a— there's a regulatory management plan, we didn't do that.

But, you know, in some cases we will ask if folks would waive their confidentiality just so that we can publish the information leads to better decision-making. But yeah, we haven't done that with this one yet. Thanks. A couple of quick questions. Can you remind me for us, is this a limited entry or an open access fishery?

Fisheries?

Yes, it is. Thanks. Which one?

I believe— I know the Sacro is limited entry, and I believe the food and some of the food and bait permits are limited entry. I'd have to look to confirm that. Okay. I remember that was part of the discussion. I think that came out.

I'd be curious about that at some point. Thank you. And then just for the record, and since we're talking about it, I'm assuming that when you're setting those— I don't know if they're the harvest thresholds or what the terminology is— that there's consideration in the management and the timing of these fisheries to account for the biology of the herring and then also their importance as a forage species, especially in the winter.

Yeah, I mean, the— we have a maximum exploitation rate that we apply to herring. Maximum of 20% of the biomass can be harvested. So that's, that's sort of our basic benchmark in herring management. And that in the Kodiak area, we set guideline harvest levels based on assessment of herring biomass in either specific specific bays or districts. So it's, you know, abundance-based management for those specific locations.

But is that tied to their biology or what else is going on in, you know, in the waters? You mentioned several fisheries that happen throughout the year. And so I'm just kind of curious. It's not like it's one or two, you— unless it is. I just— I'm curious about how the department is managing that.

Yeah. I mean, You know, herring are unique in that we're traditionally trying to harvest them when they're spawning or immediately pre-spawn.

But there isn't— you know, we don't have regulatory closed periods for herring because of some particular facet of their biology. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Appreciate that update.

All right. Anything else before I go through this new committee assignments? Okay. All right. So here's the new standing committees for the '25-'26 Board of Fish Committee assignments.

For the Joint Committee, Board of Fish, Board of Game, the chair is Ms. Irwin. Members will be Svenson and Chamberlain. For the Committee on Federal and State Assistance, the chair will be Mr. Chamberlain with memberships of Godfrey and Irwin. For the Habitat Committee, the chair will be Mr. Wood with membership of Swenson and Godfrey. For the Hatchery Committee, all members will participate and the board chair will chair that committee.

For the Joint Protocol Board of Fish and PFMC, the chair will be Mr. Carpenter. Membership will be myself and Mr. Wood. For the Board Process Management and Research Needs Committee, the chair will be myself with the membership of Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Wood. And then the Joint Herring Revitalization Board of Fish, CFEC Committee has been disbanded. Are there any questions, comments, requests to change?

Mr. Commissioner? Yes, I just have a question just for our planning purposes in the department. Often do these committees plan to meet in the next calendar year so that we can plan that for budgetary reasons and planning reasons? That is a good question. Um, in the last 2-3 years, I think we've only had a couple of committee meetings, with the exception of the Herring Committee meeting that met.

I have heard around the table today that there's some interest in having some committees meet. Certainly I would anticipate the Process Committee meeting, meeting a couple times over the course of the year. I don't know whether or not that's going to happen during sort of the cycle schedule. I think it's pretty packed this, this year, but I'd be interested in having a couple. And I think Mr. Wood indicated some interest in having the Habitat Committee meet potentially as well.

I don't know if anybody else has anything off the top of their heads. So would those be virtual meetings or do you anticipate those being in person? I'm anticipating those be virtual meetings. Thank you. Yeah.

Unless, you know, the public requires otherwise.

OK, moving on. I think our next section of the agenda are staff reports and presentations, and we'll take just a couple of minutes to get set up. Mr. Bowers.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair and members of the board. So the next agenda item includes presentations from our staff related to salmon escapement goals. And stocks of concern that apply to the upcoming Board of Fisheries cycle. The purpose of these presentations is to highlight the department's escapement goal review for salmon stocks in the Bristol Bay, Arctic Yukon, Kuskokwim, Chignik, and Alaska Peninsula management areas, and highlight the department's recommendations for any stocks of concern in advance of the upcoming board meetings. Detailed oral and written reports concerning escapement goals will be presented to the board during the respective regulatory meetings.

These reports will list all the escapement goals as well as detailed descriptions of the methods used to establish and modify these goals. In addition, the department will present stock status reports and action plans for stocks of concern during the regulatory meetings. So unless you have, uh, any questions for me at this time, I'll ask our research coordinators to provide you with the escapement goal and stock of concern updates for Bristol Bay, Arctic Yukon, Kuskokwim, Chignik, and Alaska Peninsula management areas. Thanks. Thanks, Forrest, for that.

I appreciate that. And I do have a question in that space. So just for sort of clarification for everyone around this table and in the audience, the department is going to go through their stock of concern memorandum and their— and their escapement goals memorandums. Certainly the board isn't going to take any action on listing of a stock of concern that may be recommended by the department or any changes to an escapement goal. That's not in the purview of this board outside of an— the OEG process.

My question is, given what you just said about having sort of the full complement of information available to the board, there are recommendations in these reports for delisting, and is it the intent, or do you think it would be best practice at this time to wait to delist that stock of concern until the full complement of the reporting has come before the board, or to do it at this meeting as we have traditionally sort of done?

Madam Chair, that's a good question. Our preference would be that the board take action on the department's stock of concern recommendations at this meeting, because that kind of helps us set the stage for what we're going to prepare at the regulatory meetings. Commissioner? Yeah, we have an interesting year ahead of us. So we're going to be taking— this is now middle of October, we're going to be end of October, we're going to be taking potential actions on stocks of concern for the AYK drainages.

And you have a meeting next month where theoretically you would give the department some opportunity to develop an action plan for those toxic concerns. There's no way that we're going to be able to come back with an action plan between now and the board meeting. Plus the fact you have a couple other board meetings that are going to play into that action plan potentially, which include the Chicknick and Bristol Bay meetings where you may take some action. So I'm struggling a little bit in my mind to figure out how we're going to potentially come up with an action plan given the scheduling that we put in place. Right.

And that's precisely the reason for my question. And, you know, I think in the past We ran into this conundrum in the last cycle as well. I think in that time it was related to the Bristol Bay stock of concern, Nushagak designation, where the action plan wasn't quite ready, if I recall, and I could be wrong. And so we postponed that action until— I think it was until maybe the statewide— the March meeting. So, I mean, which is problematic for a variety of reasons, particularly since the stakeholders specific to that region may or may not be able to attend two meetings.

So I understand that, but there is no way the department is going to be able to put together an action plan in the next three weeks. So— or two, we'd have to actually have it done in two weeks because we then we'd have to have public review on it, AC review. So my suggestion is, at least for the AYK meeting, is to defer that action plan until the statewide meeting, understanding you're going to potentially take action in a couple other meetings that have impacts on that action plan moving forward. Okay, um, and thank you for that. I just wanted to make sure that we had that out and on the record so that the public can take that into consideration and provide feedback to the board.

Um, any other discussion or questions? Okay, all right, we'll go ahead and, uh, get set up and launch into the, um, the department reports and presentations.

Yeah, we'll, we'll go ahead and take 5 minutes and get set up, and then, uh, we'll come back on the record. Thanks.

Hey folks, we're just waiting on an RC distribution and then we'll get going with the presentations.

Okay, thank you. Welcome back. The time is 10:31. We are back on the record, and I would also just ask members and folks with microphones in front of them to pull them a little bit closer. I've heard quite a bit of feedback from the audience that they can't hear us, so, um, we'll pull those mics a little bit closer and hopefully that will improve the sound.

Okay, let's go ahead and begin with with the staff reports and presentations. Gentlemen.

Uh, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Birch Foster. I am the Western Region Fishery Research Coordinator with the Division of Commercial Fisheries. With me is Nick Tokovich, the Division of Sport Fish Regional Research Coordinator for Southcentral and Westward Alaska. Today Today we will present the Escamico recommendation memo for Chignik Area L and Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands Area M management areas.

Beginning in February of 2025, the Salmon Escamico Review Committee, including staff from the divisions of commercial fisheries and sport fish, reviewed existing salmon escamico for Chignik and Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands. The review was based on the policy for the management of sustainable fisheries, sustainable salmon fisheries, and the policy for statewide salmon escapement goals.

The previous escapement goal review for Area L and Area M occurred in 2020, and for the 2025 review, 4 additional years, 2021 through 2024, of data were considered. During the escapement goal review, the committees determined the appropriate goal type of BEG or SEG for each salmon stock with an existing goal and considered other monitored exploited stocks without an existing goal. Based on the quality and quantity of available data, the committee determined the most appropriate methods to evaluate and set escapement goals. For the most part, the review reanalyzed only those goals with recent data that could potentially result a substantially different escamico from the last review, or those that should be eliminated or established.

I ask that you now refer to RC3, the Chignik and Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands Escamico Memo, which describes the current status of the review of escamico.

Page 6 and 7 of this memo includes a table with our 7 current escapement goals for Chignik and 22 goals for Alaska Peninsula and the year that, that they were adopted. We will start with Area L, the Chignik Management Area. During this review, there was no compelling evidence to add systems that currently do not have goals.

There's only one goal for king salmon in Area L, the Chignik River King Salmon goal was last revised in 2002 and last reanalyzed with the spawn and recruit model in 2018. Updated analysis using the percentile approach corroborated the current goal and indicated no change was warranted to the current BEG.

For Chignik Area Sockeye Salmon, the scheme goals for Chignik Sockeye Salmon were last revised in 2023. Which resulted in a total run BEG for the two stocks of sockeye salmon managed in the CMA. The team reanalyzed the goal using spawn recruit, euphotic volume, and zooplankton biomass models on the Chignik early, late, and total run goals and, and concluded that the current goal is still appropriate and no change to the esquema goal was warranted.

For pink and chum salmon, aggregate escapement goals for chum and even- and odd-year pink salmon were last revised in 2018. Escapement data were reviewed and reanalyzed using the percentile approach for the area-wide aggregate escapement goals for chum and even- and odd-year pink salmon. The team determined that results of analyses corroborated, corroborated the existing SEGs and that no changes to the escamicoles were warranted. There are currently no escamicoles for Coho salmon in Chignik Management Area. That concludes the review of Chignik Management Area salmon stocks.

We will now move to Area M, the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Management Area.

During this review, there was no compelling evidence to add systems that currently do not have goals.

Within Area M, there's only one king salmon escapement goal for Nelson River. The goal was last revised in 2019. Updated analysis using the percentile approach corroborated the existing goal and indicated to the team that no change was warranted to the current BEG.

For Area M sockeye salmon, all 13 escapement goals for sockeye salmon in Area M North Creek, Bear, Cinder, Ilnek, Meshick, Nelson, and Sandy Rivers, Christianson and Mortensen Lagoons, McLeese, Orzinski, and Thin Point Lakes were all reanalyzed to include the most recent available data. The team updated the analysis of these escamicoles using the percentile approach for all systems except Bear River late run and Nelson River sockeye salmon, which have data suited to spawn and recruit analyses. The team determined that current escapement goals for all these systems are still appropriate and no changes to the escapement goals were warranted. The pink salmon escapement goal in Area M, uh, was last revised in 2016. Recent escapement data were analyzed using spawn and recruit models, and the review team agreed that no changes to the goal were necessary.

For chum salmon escapement in Area M, aggregate chum salmon SEGs based on peak aerial survey counts from designated index streams were established for the Southeastern, Southcentral, and Southwestern districts in 2019 and the Northern and Northwest districts in 2023. The team reanalyzed the existing goals using the percentile approach and found no changes were warranted to goals.

Coho salmon escapement in Area M. There are two SEGs in Area M for Coho salmon, one each for Nelson and Ilnick, which were revised in 2023.

Between 2015 and '22, both systems achieved the lower bounds of their respective SEGs for Coho salmon. Except for Ilmik River in 2017. Both systems failed to meet their SEGs in 2023 when survey conditions were poor and 2024 when surveys could not be conducted. These goals were reviewed recently in 2020 and the teams reanalyzed the goals again in 2025. Updated analyses using the percentile approach did not indicate that the goals should be changed.

Common to both systems, staff have been unable to consistently conduct aerial surveys for Coho salmon escapement during peak run timing in mid-September over the last 5 years because of insufficient funding for aerial surveys and reduced season length for the Port Moller field office. Additionally, fall aerial survey conditions are historically poor which has hindered the enumeration of fish. Because of the recent difficulty conducting aerial surveys on these systems, the team considered eliminating the Nelson River and Ilmik River Coho Salmon SEGs. However, given that these goals were revised in 2023, the team chose to keep them in place for an additional 3 years as the Coho Salmon Assessment Program is reevaluated. That concludes our summary of a schematical review for Chignik and Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands area.

In addition— in addition to a more detailed oral presentation planned for the February 2026 board meeting, staff will publish two separate reports that describe further details regarding the schematical reviews I have just as briefly described here. And the next subject is our stocks of concern. And so at this time, we will present the department's recommendations for stock of concern for the Chignik and Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands areas.

Following the 2025 salmon season, all 7 Chignik and 22 Alaska Peninsula salmon stocks with formal escapement goals were reviewed for potential stock of concern status by the Escamico Review Committee. This evaluation included input from staff at the headquarters, regional, and area levels across both fishery divisions. I ask that you now refer to tables 1 and 2 on pages 4 and 5 of the stock of concern memo. Which is RC4.

It shows recent escapements of all area salmon stocks with escapement goals that the committee reviewed as candidates for stock of concern designation. The shaded cells identify years in which escapement were below the escapement goals that was in place at the time of the assessment.

Escapement is monitored using weirs or aerial surveys in these areas. Escapements have generally— have been generally met, with the exception of Chignik River king salmon. Chignik River king salmon and Chignik River early-run sockeye salmon are the only stocks currently listed as stocks of concern management— management concern, sorry— in these management areas. The Chignik River king salmon run has not met the biological escapement goal. In 5 of the last 6 years, but it, it did— it achieved the lower end of the goal in 2025.

Fishery restrictions and closures aimed at conserving king salmon were instituted in 2017 and 2019 through '22. In 2023, the recommended management actions outlined in the board-adopted action plan were imposed on the fisheries with preemptive closures of subsistence and sport fisheries, weekly commercial fishing limits within Chignik Bay District, and the— and king salmon harvest caps within the Chignik Management Area. The 2025 season was the most restrictive thus far. The department recommends continuing the Chignik River king salmon designation as a stock of management concern.

At the March 2022 Board of Fisheries statewide shellfish meeting, as an out-of-cycle action, the board reviewed recent escapements of Chignik River early-run sockeye salmon and designated, designated it as a stock of management concern. Chignik River sockeye salmon have met the early-run optimal escapement goal of 300,000 to 400,000 fish in of the past 5 years, and the department is expecting to meet this goal range in future years. The conditions for delisting in the board-approved 2023 action plan have been met. Therefore, the department recommends removing the Chignik River early-run sockeye salmon stock management concern designation.

So the department recommends Chignik River King Salmon remain a stock of management concern, but recommends delisting the Chignik River Early Run Sockeye Salmon as a stock of management concern. No other systems in the registration area L or M are recommended for stock of concern designation. We are in the process of drafting stock status and action plan review for the regulatory meeting coming up in February.

And that is the end of this presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Quick question. So back to my earlier question about accepting department recommendations, if you're going to have updated information for us at the regulatory cycle meeting, I'm confused why we had a— You requested that we take action on the department's design recommendations at this meeting. I think I just heard two things, but please, I might have not. Can you help me, Forrest?

Yeah.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So if, say, for example, if you chose to remove the Chignik early-run sockeye stock of concern designation at this meeting, then we would not prepare an action plan for consideration during the regulatory meeting because it would not be a stock of concern. So if— but if you chose to keep that in place, then we would prepare an action plan to bring forward. So that's, that's why we're asking for action on stock of concerns at this meeting. Okay, I understand.

And so that action plan may or may not change depending upon the board's discussion and action. Mr. Swenson, I got a couple questions for you. So the Chignik— the Chignik River has no coho plan, basically. Is that what you said? I mean, that's what it says here, I think.

Through the chair, Mr. Svenson, no coho salmon assessment goals in Chignik. Now, is that because basically there's no other fish that you are concerned with taking at that time that would affect the coho?

Or, I mean, you know, there's no— they run late, obviously, later than the others. So is that basically why you don't have any information about how many cohos you have? Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Swenson, there are coho salmon rivers in Chignik. They are not monitored that late in the season. And that's, you know, kind of the case at a lot of places in Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula.

Okay. So you said they revised the COHO plan in Area M. How did they— from the first— you had your first revision. What was that? What did that entail? Did that lower the escapement goal or—.

Mr. Svenson, I think we were looking at reevaluating the COHO coho salmon monitoring program. And the problem is decreased funding has resulted in staff leaving earlier, not being able to fly as many flights late season. And so we are rarely able to get good coho salmon aerial surveys in like we did historically.

My last question for you.

Do the king salmon and the sockeye salmon run at the same time in the Chignik River?

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, yes. So if you're going to eliminate the stock of concern for the reds, How are you going to manage? Obviously you're going to be fishing more for the reds. Is that correct?

Commercially? Through the chair, Mr. Svenson, the, the— I mean, it's, it's escapement-based management for sockeye. A lot of the restrictions that we've imposed for kings at Chignik definitely impact the amount of sockeye that are harvested out there. And it's especially, you know, if we imposed, you know, weekly fishing limits in Chignik Lagoon or Chignik Bay District, like say 48 hours a week, And we're doing that for king salmon. It is going to affect the sockeye harvest.

And we'll probably escape more sockeye than we intend to, trying to manage simultaneously. Well, you know where I'm going with this. Greg? Just real quick. Mr. Commissioner?

I think the Chinook salmon are still a sockeye concern. So it has an action plan. So we're still going to be managing Chinook salmon under that action plan prescriptions moving forward. So it's not that we're suddenly going to start managing sockeye now. We still have the stock of concern in its action plan dealing with Chinook salmon.

Yeah, because you see where I'm going with it. Okay. Thank you. Other board questions? I got a couple of questions for you.

So for the years within the action plan that you are using for consideration for delisting, which years do you have GSI data for?

Madam Chair, you're talking about—. Sorry, I'm specific to the Chignik early-run sockeye. Okay. Yeah, we have I mean, the first thing is we do not have funding for in-season genetics. We collect genetics at the weir.

Yeah. So after the fact, I think we have— we have genetics. We got genetics from 2023 and I think they're working on— I think they're working on 2024.

We collected 2025, but they're, they're not analyzed. So after the fact, we have, we have received data and input on that. Yes. Thanks. Is the 2024 AMR published for the Chicknick Management Area?

Oh, Madam Chair, can you repeat that? The 2024 area management report for your Area L published and available to the public? Because I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Um, it's not It's not out yet. I think it's, it's in prep.

It's very close to publishing. Thanks. So you don't have genetics for 2022 for the early run? I don't believe— I think there weren't any collected that year. So 2023 is the only year that we have available GSI available to the department and the board?

I, I'm not— I think there, there is data for 2022. I am— I don't think— I'm not sure that was analyzed. Okay. Do you know why? Funding.

Okay. So I guess where I'm going with here is I'm looking at the RCs that came before us, RC 12 and RC 13, and what those graphics and I think also the table are kind of depicting is those RCs is concerned, raised by stakeholders, that the GSI data, when it's applied, um, reveals that perhaps the apportionment that the department is using, um, and the model might be a little bit overestimating the runs and the timing of the runs. Would you agree with that data or not? Have you had a chance to to take a look at it. I believe there was in 20— the RC-13 was a May 14th, 2025 submission letter to the department.

Um, yes, Madam Chair. So yeah, we, we received, we received, um, you know, information after the fact, but when the genetics, you know, were analyzed And it is— the in-season genetics is, of course, a different method than we use. We use like a runtime model and a maximization algorithm that uses escapement and harvest because we did not and still don't have a funding source for the in-season genetics.

But it is a different method and It is— it was, you know, a different number, a higher number than, you know, after-the-fact analysis with in-season genetics. And I think that— I think this is a good conversation to have. Number one, trying to find a funding source, trying to find a permanent funding source to do in-season genetics. You know, we, we moved on to another method of run reconstruction. And, and so that is, that is our standard right now.

But it doesn't mean that in the future that we can't think about coming up with funding and a better way to do it, a better way to maybe, maybe not so much manage in season, but get a— it seems like genetics to use to post-season round reconstruction. So yeah, I think that's— the numbers are different, they're different methods. That's the biggest deal, right? But I guess I'm not requesting— and the conversation isn't around using GSI for in-season management. The conversation is using GSI data that the department has for 2023 and 2024 for, per your testimony, for, you know, ground-truthing what the timing of the runs actually are, especially in consideration of a stock of concern delisting question.

Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, I just got a copy of the— of this RC-12, and I asked my chief genetic— my chief fishery scientist to take a look at it. And I think he's got some insights as to how that genetic information is incorporated into the estimates for that transition period as well as the entire length. So maybe we could invite him to the table and provide some perspective. That'd be helpful.

Bill?

Yes, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Bill Templin, Chief Fishery Scientist for Salmon for the Division of Commercial Fisheries.

So, uh, I think what we have here, the numbers that I've seen in the, in the RC and the graphs indicate— let me back up. This, during 2023, we ran the transition period. We did not run samples throughout the season as normally when we were running GSI in 2023. It was just the period of transition in order to get information on when early run was transitioning into late run.

There was a report that came out of the lab of those samples. That report limited its scope just to the transition period, but it did provide estimates for escapement within that period. And I believe the numbers that I'm seeing here are the numbers for the transition period, not the expansion to the entire run. And so the difference that we're seeing between the two curves on the plots is a difference in the way that early run and late run are being estimated in the entire run of sockeye salmon into Chignik Lakes.

The assumptions— you'd have to make some assumptions to go from taking the the numbers from during the transition period and then expanding those to include the earliest portion of the run and the latest portion of the run in order to get numbers. And for those, the best method we currently have is the ones currently used by the region in ADFG region. Thank you. What is your response and your assessment of RC-12? Where it actually does lay out sort of the full run and not just the transition period.

So, Madam Chair, not having the analysis that actually went into what's presented there, I don't know what assumptions were made. I don't know how the numbers were expanded. If I had that, I could probably give you a a better assessment of it, but I do believe that the confusion here is partly due to the report as well because the report actually included a column called escapement, and it was— the text says it was escapement during the transition period, not escapement to the entire system. So. Okay.

So what I would ask you to do then, I guess, just— so I'm confused. Number one, I'm confused how this GSI data is being used, if it's being used, and if it isn't being used, why it's not being used if the department is collecting it and has it. And quite frankly, a funding problem is— especially on a stock of concern, I would think that that would be prioritized, especially in, you know, a fishery that consistently and historically has been a lot of— has, has created a lot of discussion and debate. Now, we don't have any jurisdiction over that, I understand that, but if we have this data, the question is why aren't we using it? We don't have 2024, we don't even have the AMR for 2024, and yet we're being asked to— and the public is being asked to accept a delisting, um, or accept the delisting recommendation, which strikes me as a little bit premature at this time.

I'm not going to belabor this anymore at this point, but I would ask you to take a look at RC-12. My intention is to go through the reports, take a lunch break, and then probably come back and go through these in order and make motions whether we accept or do not accept or concur with, you know, concur or not curb the department's recommendations in the stock of concern memorandum. Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, that's fine. I just want to respond to your comment a little bit about how we prioritize things inside the department.

So we have a lot of stocks of concern across the state. We readjusted our genetics workload considerably to deal with the issues facing the board at this one. So, you know, I can appreciate that, that CHIGNIC is important, but it's important in the context of the overall workload of that genetics labs. And we're trying to do our best. But some of the questions you're asking, I think, deserve some kind of answers and we'll get them back to you.

Fair. And let's take the lunch break to kind of talk through them if we can and get some clarification. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Mr. Wood?

Yeah, thank you. I've been trying to understand this. I feel like as an— as a member, this is the first cycle for CHIGNIC. Trying to understand Chignik. And when you say delisting the early run and you're using GIS data, hopefully, to figure out what is the early run or the late run, are these runs going to separate lakes?

Do these fish physically look different, or is the only way— like, how do you know the early run sockeye aren't just early, late-run sockeye. Like, how do you— how are you guys— I'm sorry for the layman's, you know, I need you to explain it to me a little bit here.

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Wood, I can explain some of that. And then from a genetic standpoint, maybe Bill can explain some. But At Chignik, there are two lakes. It's a very large watershed. For the most part, the early run tend to migrate up into Black Lake and spawn in the tributaries to Black Lake.

And then for the most part, the late run tends to spawn in Chignik Lake, tributaries to Chignik Lake, or the shoals. But there's a lot of other spawning stocks within Black River and the Choctaw and other rivers that it's not just as black and white as Black Lake and Chicknick Lake.

And genetically, And I guess you want to repeat your question about the genetic portion of it? Well, I don't mind at all because if— so are you measuring genetics on all these fish early and late, or are you just like doing— do they look different when you talk about black and white? Do the fish even look different, the ones that are going to the upper lake versus the lower lake, or are you doing genetics on all of them from the beginning of the season all the way through, or just in this transition time? Oh, okay. So, um, through the chair, Mr. Wood, we are collecting the genetics, paired genetics, primarily during the transition time, which is— we're looking at, um, like late June through mid to late July.

The fish— well, I mean, traditionally locals will tell you that it's as easy as telling the difference between bluebacks and greenbacks, but I can't tell the difference between the fish.

That's it for now. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Templin.

Yes, Madam Chair, uh, uh, Member Wood, uh, there are genetic differences between the two. Those differences are driven both by isolation in space as well as isolation in time. Uh, you know, early run, late run, Black Lake, Chignik Lake.

Early run tends to happen all within a tight period of time, whereas the late run tends to be protracted. In fact, there are records even of sockeye returning to the system in October, November. So it's— there are a lot of genetic differences. However, as Mr. Foster has said, there are some places where there are some intermixing of the two, especially in Black River, Choctaw Creek. In fact, there are records even of juvenile studies on Choctaw Creek fish.

As they come out, some of them turn west and go up to the Black, and some of them turn right and go down to Chignik. And that's a genetically inherited rio tactic response. Anyway, that's just a little bit more information on— it's— we can do it, but sometimes it's difficult to do. And transition period is the time when it's the most difficult to tell, both timing-wise but also in terms of genetics, what the differences are. So, which is why we concentrated on that period of time.

2 Questions. What's rheotaxic mean? Madam Chair, that means how you orient towards the current, what the pressure on your face is, I guess you could say. Are you the kind of person who puts your face to the wind or huddles away from it? And then I guess something that you said very quickly at the end there is that you said it was difficult to tell them genetically apart.

And could you expand upon that? I don't understand what you mean by that. Because I mean, it used to be fish scales, now it's genetics. What's the challenge there? Madam Chair, the challenge here is that genetically speaking, if there's an overlap between the early run and the late run, it's going to happen generally with fish that have returned during this transition time.

So you can have genotypes that are— sorry, I'm speaking with my hands. You can have genotypes for an individual fish that had one parent that was an early-run fish and one that was a late-run fish, so you could basically have a mixed sort of genotype. Those are going to be more common during transition period than early in the season or late in the season. Does that help? Yes, it does.

Thank you for that. All right, I don't see any more questions on this one. Let's go ahead and move on to Bristol Bay.

Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Jack Erickson and I am a fisheries research coordinator for the Division of Commercial Fisheries in Central Alaska. With me today again is Nick Dokovich. Nick is my counterpart with the Division of Sport Fish, and he covers Southcentral and Westward Alaska. Today we're going to be summarizing the recent review of escapement goals and stocks of concern for the Bristol Bay management area, similar to what you just saw for Westward. Beginning in November of 2024, Salmon Escapement Goal Review Committee, including staff from both divisions.

We reviewed the existing salmon escapement goals for Bristol Bay, and that was based on both the policy for sustainable salmon fisheries as well as the policy for statewide salmon escapement goals. During this review, the committee determined the appropriate type, that be a BEG or SEG. Normally you'll be hearing us refer to SEGs, sustainable escapement goals that the department sets. And we looked at each of the stocks that currently has goals and looked at some additionals to see if there were possibility we want to establish new goals. Based on the quality and quantity of the data, the committee determined the most appropriate methods to assess or to establish goals.

For the most part, the review just reanalyzed only those goals that had recent data that could potentially result in substantially different goals since the last review, or look at some goals that could possibly be eliminated. We have roughly 70 years of data. More data does not necessarily mean more information to develop a new goal or adjust it. I'm going to ask that you now refer to RC5, and that's the Bristol Bay Area management scheme and goal memo. And this describes the current status of the escapement goals.

So if you turn to RC5, in particular page 4.

And page 4 of this is the table with our 13 current escapement goals, and it shows the type of goal, how it's evaluated, and the year that it was established. We'll first start with the king salmon, and then we'll work through each of our findings from the committee.

For this review, the stock recruit analysis for king salmon was updated with brood years from 1966 through 2016. We also updated what's called the run reconstruction with recent data that integrates historical escapement, harvest, the size of the in-river run at the sonar, age composition, and then we reconstructed the historical runs and escapements. And then we looked at the typical parameters such as maximum sustained yield from the model outputs. The committee, after this review, found no reason, no compelling reason at this time to, or any evidence to suggest that the goal should be changed for Noshogak River Kings.

Then we looked on to, to sockeye salmon, and that's the bread and butter of Bristol Bay. The current SEGs were developed by a board committee with input from industry, academia, and the department back in 2012 to 2015, basically a 4-year process where a committee of experts from across North America met. In that 3-year, 4-year process, sockeye salmon sustainable escapement goals were developed using alternative methodologies which incorporated economics, biology, as well as theoretical-based models to look at maximizing yield. That committee, and even our current committee, acknowledged that these SEGs could result in foregone harvest. Because these goals are not based strictly on the traditional department spawn-to-recruit or per percentile methods, they could have been adopted at that time as OEGs, or optimal escapement goals, by the board.

That being said, the current SEGs have proven to be sustainable for sockeye runs during these relatively— well, extremely high productivity periods where we've had record near-record returns and runs for the last decade. The committee found no compelling evidence that the goal should be changed at this time. Then we also looked at chum salmon. We recommend no change to the single goal we have with Nushagak River chum. The committee reviewed the recent escapements and just— we determined that updating the data set would not result in a new or modified goal of measurable, of measurable difference.

We also have one pink salmon goal in, in Bristol Bay, and that's Nushagak. The committee findings are to eliminate the Nushagak pink salmon SEG. There has been little assessment of pink salmon stock performance since the goal was established in 2013. The sonar project has only operated twice since then on the Nushagak to enumerate pinks. And during this goal, during this time, we just don't expect to continue or monitor pink salmon on the Nushagak River.

It's a late run. So our findings are to eliminate pink salmon goal for the Nushagak.

Moving on to Coho Salmon. The findings from the committee are to eliminate the Nushagak Coho Salmon SEG as well. Similar to pink salmon, there has been little assessment of Coho Salmon stock performance since this goal was established. The Nushagak River sonar has operated during the month of August 4 times since it was established. There is no expectation of future assessment to inform the stock assessment to inform the escapement goal analysis.

So the findings are to remove the coho escapement goal for the Nushagak River.

And that concludes our summary of escapement goal review for Bristol Bay Management Area. At this time, Nick and I are willing to address your questions relating to escapement goals before we move on to stocks of concern. Thank you. Are there escapement goal questions? Mr. Swenson.

So how much have the escapement goals changed on the Nushagak? From, you know, I thought the escapement goals were quite a bit higher than, you know, 55,000 to 120,000. Through the chair, are you referring to King Salmon? You're referring to the King Salmon. King Salmon.

The King Salmon goal is 55,000 to 120,000. That is the current current goal. We're not recommending any changes to that. I will talk about that during our stock of concern and the performance of that, but we are not currently meeting that goal, and it is listed as a stock of concern. We are not looking to change that goal at this time.

So my question is, to get to that 55,000 and 120,000, what was it before this? I mean, uh, through the chair, uh, Mr. Svenson, I'd have to go back and look and see when that goal was first originated, but it's been in place since 2013, so roughly 12 years it's been there. But it's not going to change here with what we have for an assessment project. And we'll be bringing that up at the regulatory meeting, the status of our current assessment, our concerns about the assessment, and the difficulties of accurately quantifying the abundance of king salmon on the Nushagak. That's the big rub for trying to— what is the correct target and how to measure it?

So this question over the sonar has been around for a long time. So is there another spot up that river that would be— right now the sonar is run on the two sides. So they don't count the fish going up the river. The two sides are the deep side. So supposedly and hopefully, you know, most of the kings or a number of kings go up there.

Is there not a place up there where that could be moved? We keep talking about this. I just—. Mr. Svenson, through the chair, we've looked at some options. We're working with the Bristol Bay Salmon Research Institute.

We have looked at some of these types of potentially moving it up. Ideally, a sonar is above saltwater so that we don't have backflow. It's below all the spawning. It has a great channel for a sonar. All of those things play into it.

Moving and selecting a sonar site to establish a goal or an enumeration project is not a simple process, and especially as we'll point out talked during the regulatory meeting with large numbers of sockeye and the ability of the sonar to address shadowing of large numbers of sockeye makes it very difficult to measure that needle in the haystack, the needle in the haystack being the king salmon in the Nushikak. If you move the sonar, you'll still have the same problem with shadowing, correct? Or not? You could. It depends on how— it depends on the patterns of how close the fish are, how many sonars you would do it.

We would have to have multiple years to be comfortable. We still have to manage in-season with what we have. That's a big concern amongst staff, amongst the public. What's the right place and how to do it? The king salmon goal that was established for Nushagak was after the fact, after we had established the sockeye goal on the Nushagak.

We looked at— we had a goal for sockeye. We felt that with this sonar technology and having some ability in doing apportionment that we could develop a goal. And that's when the goals were originally developed. It's a much newer goal, and that sonar was an after-the-fact— provided an after-the-fact opportunity to develop a new goal for King's back sometime in probably about 2010. I won't belabor it, but it seems to me that— I don't know who makes those decisions and how it all comes about, but it just seems to me that we need to get that sonar moved because nobody really believes in the counts that it gets in many respects.

So I don't know, I guess I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I am familiar with that sonar site as well, and, but my question for you is, with the Coho salmon and pink salmon.

Does it cost the department money to have it on the books still? So why, why eliminate it rather than just leave it as it is? I'll let Director Bowers take that question.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, so, so escapement goals are our management targets. And, you know, if we, if we can't assess a goal, then I think it, it leads to a perception that, you know, we have more information and precision in fishery management than we really do. So, so removing goals that for stocks where there's no assessment program, you know, it just provides more transparency transparency in how the department's managing fisheries. Thanks. I understand that, and I, I respect that as well.

But, um, the way things change, if all of a sudden there was more exploitation of, say, the coho run or the pink run down the road, wouldn't it be good to already have this baseline? Whether you had more sport fishing in late season going in there onto the Nouch or say you just started cutting more coho strips for the smokehouse, isn't, you know, upriver, isn't there a good enough reason there to just keep what you already have and maybe one year you just let it run into August a little longer than you normally would?

I'll take that question. We've been consistent, I think, as an agency when a goal is no longer being accessed, as our director pointed out, to remove it. We still have the ability, if things did change, to shoot for a target and make it, but to put it in regulation and be less than transparent about what we're measuring. We have spent a lot of money with the help of our cooperators out in Bristol Bay to look at the right timing and the cost-benefit for operating our, our sonars on our towers out in Bristol Bay. And we have looked at basically about July 20th is where it really falls off.

It's not easy to maintain projects into August, and especially if there's no market for these fish, it's just not a cost-effective means. And we would prefer to bring a goal back if we had to, but at this time The department feels that removing the goal is appropriate. Mr. Bauer, then Commissioner. Thanks, Madam Chair. And I'd just like to add that, you know, the, the fact that there's no goal does not mean that we can't manage a stock sustainably.

You know, we, there, we can use harvest and effort indicators. Provide relative abundance information, and that's, that's a common method across the state for managing lightly exploited stocks. So, so the lack of a goal does not mean that we're not managing them. Thanks. Mr. Nguyen.

Um, thank you. Through the chair, um, does the department have any subsistence harvest survey data or sport fish data. It's, it's for me looking at this and trying to consider eliminating a goal when we have no data. I understand it's kind of a chicken or egg situation because you don't have the sonar up and running or funding to get that data. But does the department have any idea of how that coho stock is actually doing at this time?

Thank you. Through the chair, Miss Irwin, in terms of subsistence, we do get reports for the salmon. I think our better estimates are probably for sockeye and kings on the Nushagak. I suspect that there's probably little harvest on subsistence pinks. Coho, we have the fish tickets from the commercial, but— and then Sport Fish has their independent estimates of probably of coho, but I can't speak directly for that.

Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. To your question, Mr. Irwin, so we have fish ticket data that's derived from the commercial fishery. For Nushagak River coho salmon, the, you know, most recent 5-year average harvest is about 13,000 fish. In the sport fishery, the data comes from the statewide harvest survey. The The most recent 5-year average there is about 6,700 fish.

And then subsistence harvest comes from subsistence permit reports, household surveys, and the average harvest there is about 3,700 fish.

Thank you for that. Just for the record, I'd like to just make a note that in setting our SEGs and our BEGs, we base it on scientific and biological data and information. And it's— I recognize the department's difficulties in continuing these projects whenever there's no funding, but it's difficult for me to consider us eliminating these based on a lack of funding when the reason they were created was with biological and scientific data. Thank you. Any other questions?

Commissioner? So yeah, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the Nuxiak King Salmon. We understand the issues the board's having a little bit with, with king salmon, how we count king salmon in the river. I share those concerns because, you know, we're now facing a system in Bristol Bay that's dramatically changing. Sockeye production is dramatically increasing.

You know, 15 years ago when we were having runs in the 20,000— in the 20 million versus the 50 million ranges we're seeing now, we had an easier time counting king salmon with sonar. With now the number of sockeye moving up that river, it's increasingly difficult. You know, we're looking very carefully at other methodologies. For instance, in the Copper River, we're using fish wheels to tag. However, we're finding there's problems associated with that.

So we're looking at moving the sonar potentially. We also are looking at trying to find some way of incorporating what we're seeing in terms of the catch rates in the guided fishery, because this year we We had conflicting information. We were seeing lags in the sonar counts, but we were seeing high catch rates in the sport fishery, which was confounding information. We also are looking at whether we can run post-season aerial surveys. We ran them for a couple of years.

This last year we didn't run them for a reason not associated with funding, but it was more of a reason associated with some activity we had at the Dillingham office. But We will get back to running those surveys post-season to give us a better index as to whether or not we're meeting the escapement in some of those streams. We're looking at it. We're—. As they said, we're looking very closely with Bristol Bay Research Unit Institute to look at different ways of counting fish.

Unfortunately, it's not going to be a real quick answer. It's going to be a very long-term looking at possible solutions, and I suspect it's not going to be a cheap way to address Nushiac King Salmon. That does not, though, alleviate our concern for Nushiac King Salmon. And I think you've seen that in our management the last couple of years where we've kind of looked at historic run timing and the run timing we're seeing now and pushing back when we're opening the sockeye fishery to move some of those kings based on king salmon numbers versus king salmon run timing versus sockeye numbers. Thank you for that, Commissioner.

Along those lines, I guess I can appreciate the difficulty in apportioning, you know, kings amongst the tremendous volume of sockeye that's moving through. And then my other question is like, how could we possibly be apportioning chums as well? And, you know, especially with this trend that we're seeing towards smaller king salmon sizes, I would ask the department, not necessarily right now, but are you considering or have you considered a large King goal, not dissimilar to what has happened on the, on the Kenai River, to try and distinguish those a little bit more by sonar or otherwise? I'm just kind of curious what your thoughts are on that. It's all on the table, but the shadowing that they discussed is a real, real difference between here and the Kenai.

Fair enough. Mr. Swenson, I don't know what this is worth considering, but they have these drones as you're all aware of. And they're using these drones. They fly over a crop field and the drone can pick out which weeds to spray. Now, would a drone— that might be something to look into, that a drone could tell the difference between a sockeye and a king.

I don't know if anybody's thought about that, but that might be something to think about. Probably would work in the spawning beds. I'm not so sure it works where the sonar site is. But yeah, we'll look at everything. Yeah.

Mr. Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair. To follow up on Member Swenson's question earlier, I did a little digging here. It looks like the previous Chinook escapement goal on the Nushagak River in 2012 was 40,000 to 80,000. And then the Escapement Goal Committee recommended to bump it up to 55 to 22 with updated information.

55 To 120, I mean. So it did actually go up. Well, thank you. That's what I was fishing for.

All right. Any other questions on the escapement goals? Okay. Let's move on to— oh, sorry, Mr. Wood. I'm sorry.

I just wanted to be clear too. You are not just doing sonar. Is that correct? Am I correct on, say, for kings and chums, you're also enumerating through the drift nets and whatnot? Because it does sound like that from boots on the ground that the chum population is— I mean, you can see it in these numbers, but it also is doing quite a bit better in the river than it had been.

But just in terms of knowing that you're not counting kings as chums or vice versa. It's, it's the net, the drift nets in the river that is helping you understand this better. Is that true or not? Through the chair, Mr., Mr. Wood, yes. When, when we're saying we're assessing Chinook, kings, or chum on the Nushagak River, we're using multiple things.

We have a sonar at a place called Portage that many of you have visited, I think, here in the last two seasons. That gives us a count of the number of fish, and then we have drift netting where we use multiple sizes of nets, where onshore and offshore for a specific amount of time, and we look at the catches that are caught in these various drift net sizes to give us hopefully a representative size. We're doing that for chum as well as the kings and the sockeye. Chums, we get most of the run by July 20th. Historically, we've gotten most of the chum run, and so So we feel comfortable with that as that escapement goal for continuing with that one.

And we are measuring it. We also get them in the catch to track the commercial catch on chums with what we see. So it's not just the sonar that we use to assess a stock in Bristol Bay. We have the catch sampling program when we're at the docks collecting samples. We have the harvest tickets, we have the genetics in season.

It's a variety of things. Postseason, as our commissioner pointed out, we've been attempting something to try to do aerial surveys of the spawning grounds for kings. It's a variety of projects. It's a large assessment project on the Nushagak. Thank you.

Okay. I just thought of something else. Very last question, I promise. With respect to the elimination of these goals for the co-hosts specifically, but also to some extent the pink, do those escapement goals currently have any effect on how you're managing sockeye?

Madam Chair, as far as I know, we— there is no tie right now with how we manage sockeye. The coho come in so much later and the pinks come in so later, we're only getting the beginning of the runs by the time we removed our assessment. Uh, the— as you're aware, the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery, the commercial fishery is a very tight window from when it happens. It happens quick and it happens short in terms of duration. And that's how we have over the decades determined that when we're going to get going, it's the end of June, they start showing up.

And by the 20th of July, this— it's really wrapped up. We're at— we're at very few fish passage. But that— the pinks and coho are still coming. Thank you. All right.

Let's talk about stock of concern. Okay. Thank you. Let me take a breath here. At this time, I'll present the department's recommendations for stocks of concern for Bristol Bay.

Following the 2025 salmon season, all 13 stocks in Bristol Bay with formal escapement goals were reviewed for potential stock of concern status by the Escapement Goal Review Committee. That evaluation included staff from headquarters, the region, as as well as area across both divisions. I'll ask that you now refer to Table 1 on page 4 of the Bristol Bay Stock of Concern. That's RC6. So if you would pull out RC6, and that's Table 1, page 4.

I'll give you a second there to catch.

This table shows the recent escapements of all Bristol Bay salmon stocks with goals that the committee reviewed as candidates for stocks of concern. And pay— I'd like you to take special attention looking at the shaded cells. These shaded cells identify years in which the escapements were below the escapement goal that was in place at the time. So you can see that at the top here, this really focusing on the Nushagak River kings, chums in the few years back, and one time for coho. We'll look at Nushagak River king salmon.

The current sustainable escapement goal for Nushagak River king salmon is 55,000 to 120,000. Back in 2022, the board designated the Nushagak River king salmon run as a stock of management concern due to a chronic inability to meet the in-river goal of 95,000 king salmon in 5 of the 6 previous years. At the time of designation, the stock had not consistently failed to meet the SEG, but concerns about the accuracy of the sonar assessment were identified at that time.

Prior to stock of concern listing, the department had been implementing king conservation measures since we noticed that the run had begun to decline back in about 2017. Those management actions have focused on closing the directed fishery for king salmon, reducing incidental catch of king salmon in the commercial sockeye salmon fishery by reducing time and area in the early sockeye run when king salmon are also present, and thirdly, by using emergency orders orders to reduce sport harvest of the Nushagak River King Salmon. So those were being done before, before we actually had it listed as a stock of management concern.

Moving forward, despite implementing the recommended actions outlined in the 2023 Nushagak District King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan, this stock has failed to achieve its escapement goal in 2023, '24, and '25. And for these reasons, the department recommends that Nushagak King Salmon remain a stock of management concern. We recommend no additional stocks be considered for stock of concern at this time, and that we will give you an update on our goals, our recommendations, an update on the stock status for Nushagak at this January 26th Board of Fish regulatory meeting. Madam Chair and members of the board, that concludes our escapement goal and stock of concern update for Bristol Bay Management Area, and we'll try to answer your questions. Any questions from the board?

Mr. Irwin, if we had the ability, if the department had the models ready to set an SCT, do you, in your opinion, would this stock be at a in a state of conservation concern?

Through the chair, Ms. Erwin. Personally, I don't believe we're at the point either, A, to set an SCT, and I don't believe that these goals that we established with the data we have, with our management actions taken, that this stock is even close to being considered in an SCT. This is— there are tens of thousands of Chinook. It may be higher than what we're reporting, it may be lower, we don't know. But there is this— I would say no, we do not, we are not close.

Our management and our goals are— we do not want to get near an SET if at all possible. I think we're a long ways away from that, and others may have difference of opinions, but I feel strongly that we are not close to SET at all.

Mr. Wood. Okay, so we'll hear more about that management plan during that in the rest of this year, time to come? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, yes, we'll be talking more about it. We're gonna give you an update on how our Nushagak is. We'll be talking about some of the options you looked at.

It's a tough egg to crack, and we've been here before, and we'll be here again on this issue. Okay, and my other question is, while I'm looking at this chart right here, The escavement goals under COHO, you have in the Nushagak, $60,000 to $70,000 at the low end and $120,000 to $130,000 at the high end. The one year that it was accounted for in 2018, it was like, you know, $111,000 for both. The year after that, it was half that, $51,852.

And then it hasn't been monitored. Correct. And now we're talking about eliminating it. Is there anything to that, the fact that it dropped in half just from one year to the next? I mean, is there— is that a weird trend or is it not alarming so you don't bother checking it out for the next 4 years?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, I think that's how COHO are. We tend to see ups and downs, cycles of coho. You'll notice that we don't have a lot of coho goals across the state. They're hard. They're hard to predict.

They're hard to say based on one year what next year's going to produce. There's a lot of variety, wet years, cold years, rain, and also measuring them many places. It's just hard to count coho if weirs flood out. There's a reason we don't have a lot of coho goals.

I totally feel your pain with Como. But that being said, in terms of eliminating something that has this kind of trend in the numbers, is that appropriate or not? Through the Chair, Mr. Wood, a trend of 2 is hard to make a tough call on. A high and a low. That's a tough trend.

That's like flipping the coin. But right now we have our we have our harvest data. Coho come in later than typically the commercial fleet is out and gone. We just do not have an assessment, and we are not anticipating that we will have an assessment in the, in the future for coho. Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Chamberlain. So just to follow up on Mr. Wood's questions, based on the other data you have, have you noticed a trend upward or downward in coho harvest and, uh, or through fish tickets over the last 5 years that would indicate, uh, the relative strength of, of that species over the last, over the last decade? Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, I do not have that information here at, at hand. I'd have to go back and dive.

Maybe Forest might have that. Mr. Bauer. Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Chamberlain, So around July 17th in Bristol Bay, we, we switched to what's called our fall season management. And so at that point, we have a pretty liberal fishing opportunity throughout Bristol Bay districts and They're— the harvest trends for coho are primarily influenced by the availability of markets for those fish.

So in years when there is processor interest in purchasing coho, then we'll see harvest increase. But, you know, in years when there's little market interest, then harvests are lower. And, you know, just— I'm just looking back at the last 10 years or so, and the harvests range from 5,100 fish to almost 170,000 fish in the Nushagak District. So, but, you know, as I said earlier, the most recent 5-year average is about 13,000. But, you know, like Mr. Erickson said, coho— annual coho abundances vary widely.

And in this case, you know, when there's typically not a directed fishery, they're just taken incidentally to late season sockeye harvest. But if there is market interest, then we'll see coho harvest increase.

So I, you know, I understand it's subject to market interest, but I'd be interested in seeing if there's anything like catch per unit effort or something like that or other sport fish derived versions of that just to look at the relative strength of this, given that there is a sport harvest, a continued commercial harvest. And subsistence harvest should not— should certainly not be ignored. I feel very uncomfortable in not knowing the data on this, especially if there's continued commercial harvest. And if I'm operating from a point of ignorance, my inclination in managing this fishery would be to manage very conservatively because I there's, there's not enough information for me on that. And so yeah, what I'm looking for is a little enlightenment on, on more, some of the more objective terms or ways in which we can look at the data and see where the fish are trending.

Thank you. Commissioner, I think what you hear the department saying is that we don't feel confident being able to assess escapement. That doesn't mean we're not going to use other tools in the meantime, but We have— we're not confident in our ability to measure escapement. So we have an escapement goal. We're not going to be able to assess that over the next several years.

So we're suggesting dropping it. That's not suggesting that we're not going to continue to monitor these other indices. They're just not a measure of escapement. They're kind of other indices that we look at the health of the run, for instance. And we do that all across the state with coho.

Coho is kind of a tricky thing. It comes in the fall. Sometimes they come in early, you get a spike of them, get 113, 111,000 next year. They may come in late, doesn't indicate that they just came in late. So we just don't know what those numbers are.

We use these other indices across the state and we'll continue to use them in this area, but the bottom line is we just can't assess the escapement goal for the next several years.

Mr. Payton. Thank you. Member Chamberlain mentioned sport. Going through the harvest survey the last 4 or 5 years. It looks like sport harvest is— hovers around 2,000 to 4,000.

It's, it's not a very big fishery over there. It's late in the year and there's much better places for coho anglers to go. So most of the camps leave, so it's a relatively small participation in harvest.

Last question, I think, maybe we'll see. Last one for me. In terms of the eliminate and The board doesn't really, unless we want to set an OEG, right, we have no say over whether or not this goal is eliminated or not. And I respect that and I understand that.

My question is, is when these escapement goals are eliminated, and I understand perfectly why, what is the likelihood of them being reinstituted? So I mean, what, what, what would change that would, you know, manifest in the reinstitution of an escapement goal? Has that happened in this state? Has it happened recently? And under what circumstances did it occur?

Well, I think if— Madam Chair, I think if technology increased to a point where we could be confident we were counting coho salmon, we would reestablish a baseline and come back with a goal. But I don't— I think this one's been kind of weird. We had a goal, then we eliminated it, then we came back with a goal, and now we're suggesting— we just are unconfident in our ability to do it. So to me, I'm not going to hold us accountable to a goal that we have no idea as to how we're going to assess it. But if we catch up, we get a new sonar technology or something that we can be confident that we're counting escapement again, We will bring it back and put an escapement goal in place.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] The second part of my question was though, in any of the eliminated escapement goals, and there have been several in my tenure on this board anyways, has it ever been reimplemented? Has one ever been reimplemented statewide? Mr. Peyton? I mean, these two have.

Looking at it, they were eliminated I think pre-2006 and then brought back in 2012 based on the work of the committee. And so this would be an example, and then re-eliminated. All right, I guess I'm just wondering, outside of, you know, this specific— this specific one just seems a concerning trend, but not one that we can do much about. I get it. Okay, let's move on.

Thank you, appreciate your reports today. Let's go ahead and move on to Ayke.

Welcome. Good morning. Just a sound check. I'm notorious for not being close enough to the mic. How's this?

Excellent.

All right, members of the board, my name is Zachary Liller. I'm the regional research coordinator for the Division of Commercial Fisheries in the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim region, or AYK for short. With me here today is Aaron Tiernan, the management coordinator for AYK. We're going to kind of take dual duty here. I'm going to walk us through the escapement goal update and then after Q&A.

When you guys are ready, Aaron's going to lead us to this topic of concern. So my update pertains to RC-7, the AYK escapement goal memo. That memo reflects the work of a review committee which includes statewide, regional, and area staff from both the commercial and sport fish divisions. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge Mr. James Saverade, who is the regional research coordinator for Division of Sport Fish, who was instrumental throughout the review. The escapement goal review was conducted in accordance with the policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries and the policy for statewide salmon escapement goals.

The review team focused on revising goals where new data or methods were available, or discontinuing goals where assessment is no longer feasible. There are currently 47 escapement goals established by the department across the AYK region. In addition, there are 3 international goals established by the Yukon River Panel for Canadian-origin Yukon River salmon. These transboundary goals are not discussed in the AYK escapement goal memo. So I'll start off by summarizing our escapement goal findings for the Norton Sound, Port Clarence, and Kotzebue management areas.

These are summarized in Table 1 of RC7. Within the Norton Sound, Port Clarence area, there are 16 goals, and within the Kotzebue management area, there are 2 goals. The review team found that revisions were warranted for a subset of Norton sound goals. I first want to start off by addressing a deviation from the escapement goal memo that we submitted to the board in early March of this year. In the memo, we signaled our plan to develop a new drainage-wide escapement goal for the Unalakleet River Chinook salmon.

This new goal was intended to replace the escapement goal on the North River, which is a tributary of the Unalakleet. Following the submission of our memo, the department made the difficult decision to discontinue the Unalakleet Weir at the request of local stakeholders, stakeholders who owned the land where the weir was operated. Loss of the weir prevents us from implementing this new drainage-wide goal, and the result is functionally no change. The department will continue to manage the Unalakleet River Chinook salmon stock to achieve the North River Tower goal. Now focus on changes where we plan to implement changes.

For the first change is specific to Subdistrict 3 of Norton Sound, where the department manages fisheries that harvest chum salmon returning to the Tabatcheluk and Quinniuk Rivers. Currently, there are chum salmon escapement goals established for both systems. However, the Tabatcheluk River aerial survey-based sustainable escapement goal, or SEG, is sporadically monitored due to logistical challenges. Given this, the department's strategy has evolved to rely primarily on escapement data collected from the Quinniack River counting tower. The department plans to discontinue the Tabutcheluk River chum salmon aerial survey goal and continue to manage these fisheries to achieve the Quinniack River SEG.

The next change is specific to Pilgrim River Salmon Lake sockeye salmon, which is a small stock in the Port Clarence District that supports an important subsistence fishery. The department's review demonstrated that upper bound of the existing SEG range is too high. As such, the department plans to revise the goal to a lower bound threshold of greater than 6,400.

This change aligns the new goals with the stock's, the stock's productivity and longstanding management strategy to maximize subsistence fishing opportunity when the goal is expected to be met. The final change for the Norton Sound area pertains to Subdistrict 3, Quinniac River Coho Salmon. There is an existing SEG for this stock based on aerial surveys, but logistical reasons have prevented those surveys from occurring in most years. Given this, the department's management of Coho Salmon has evolved to rely on escapement data collected from the Quinniac River counting tower. The department plans to replace the Quinniac River Coho Salmon aerial survey base based SEG with a higher quality tower-based lower bound SEG of greater than 4,400.

I'll now move on to the Yukon Management Area. There are 12 escapement goals for the Yukon River drainage within Alaska. These are summarized in Table 2 of RC7. The review team determined that no revisions to existing escapement goals were warranted during this cycle. As such, all goals will stay the same.

And finally, we'll summarize the escapement goal changes for the Kuskokwim Management Area, which includes the Kuskokwim River and Kuskokwim Bay drainages. There are 17 escapement goals for this area. These are summarized in Table 3 of RC7. The department is not planning any new goals or revisions to existing goals for this area. However, the department does plan to discontinue the Middle Fork Good News River SEGs that are established for king salmon, chum salmon, sockeye, and coho due to a lack of funding to operate the weir that is required to assess the goal.

The department will continue to monitor escapement in the drainage using aerial surveys, and aerial survey-based SEGs for the North Fork of the, of the Good News River will remain in place. So that completes my summary of the department's plans for the AYK region escapement goals. A comprehensive written report has already been uploaded to the board website for the AYK region meeting, which is scheduled for November 18th through 22nd. And at that time, we'll provide a detailed oral report as well. So thanks for your time, and we're happy to address any questions that you might have about AYK escapement goals.

Any questions? Quick question, um, how large is that weir that's discontinued in the Good News River? You're asking about the Unalakleet Weir? No, the Good News River. Oh, the Good News.

Yeah. As far as size, I don't have that number right off the top of my head unless you do, Aaron. No, it's, it's a, it's a sizable river. It is a resistance board weir, so it's specifically designed to deal with large river systems that are prone to flooding. But that particular Wear hasn't operated since 2019.

Okay, thanks. Uh, Mr. Wooden, then Mr. Swenson. Okay, um, for the Norton Sound Port Clarence area, uh, Pilgrim River, Salmon Lake, um, you're dropping the number, the lower end, from 6,800 to 6,400, but you're leaving the upper number the same, 36,000?

Through the chair, thanks for the request for clarification. We are dropping the lower bound by 400, just as you described. Yeah, the upper bound is being removed, so it will be a lower bound threshold. Okay. And is that Pilgrim River— is this one that has been fertilized for at some point for helping create more like, I don't know, enhanced sockeye?

Through the chair. Yes, this, this system has been fertilized by the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation annually since 1997. I think there's 4 years in there where fertilization did not occur. And yes, the primary motivation there is that this is a system at the northern end of sockeye salmon's range. It's a relatively low productivity lake.

So the idea is to try to boost primary production to feed zooplankton, to feed little sockeye salmon, to increase the health and size of the outmigrating smolt. Okay, and so this is primarily subsistence fishery, or is there any commercial fishing on this as well for sockeye? Through the chair, yeah, this is almost exclusively a subsistence fishery. There's been 2 years in the history of the fishery there where there's been very, very small commercial opportunity. But currently there's no, no interest in the area.

Okay, and one more question. Go to a different area, just Kotzebue area, chum salmon. And there wasn't a ton of information here, and I just wondered if you guys are— if there's any escapement numbers, or are you guys tracking those at all for the for the Noatak and Kobuk River? Uh, through the chair, excellent question. We do have two escapement goals for Kotzebue area chum salmon.

Those are aerial survey-based goals. Because of difficulty in flying successful aerial surveys in the area, those goals haven't been assessed for a number of years. However, the department is initiating a pretty broad sweeping research effort over the next 3 years to revitalize chum salmon assessment in the Kotzebue area. And so specifically getting at better escapement numbers and increasing our ability to assess the escapements of those 2 systems is front and center in that plan. Okay, that's cool to hear.

I actually have experience setting it up there in that area and know that at one point there was a hatchery fishery on the Noatak River for chum, and I believe these are all fall chum. And I was just curious, like, the fluctuation of that fishery every year is like totally volatile. And I just wondered how that's even able to be exploited based on the fact that there's like no escapement numbers. Through the chair, similar to the conversation that was taking place when Mr. Erickson and them were up here, We do have commercial harvest statistics and things like that that are used to help inform the strength of the run and guide fisheries openings. For a number of years, we had a small test fishery up there.

That test fishery currently no longer operates because of funding limitations, but we use those types of alternative measures to evaluate the strength, strength of the run.

Mr. Swenson, thank you. Just a quick question. So you had to take the weir out of the Good News River there, the Middle Fork of the Good News River, is that correct? And that's because you said that the property it was on, they wouldn't let you use it, is that kind of what you said? Through the chair, I'll clarify.

So we have I referenced two projects that use weir-based monitoring. The Unilakleet Chinook Weir is the one that we no longer have access to the land where the weir project is operated from. So we had to discontinue that weir. There's no goal currently associated with that weir, but we discontinued operation of that weir in 2025. Which unfortunately prevents us from moving forward with establishing more robust escapement goals for the Unalakleet Chinook stock.

Separating that now from the good news, the good news has had a weir project that operated for quite a number of years. We fully lost funding for that weir in 2019, so it has not been— that weir-based goals for Chinook, Chum, Sockeye, and Coho have not been assessed since 2019. We— so for that reason, we are planning to discontinue the weir-based goal on the Good News due to a lack of assessment. So I'm guessing you're not worried about it then, huh? No, there's still a tremendous amount of interest and focus on that stock.

So we do have aerial survey-based goals. Goals for the North Fork of the Good News for Chinook and sockeye salmon. We also have aerial survey-based goals on the— step back— on the Middle Fork. So we have aerial survey-based goals on the Middle Fork and the North Fork. And then we also have— well, those are our alternative assessments for the—.

Over the weir. Okay, thank you. Ms. Irwin.

Thank you very much for your presentation. What causes the department to just decide to set the lower, the lower end of the SEG instead of setting a range of the SEG?

Through the chair, thanks for the question. I can speak to, at least in these situations that I mentioned, for Norton Sound. It's primarily due to the utility, the type of fishery. So that— but in both situations, the fishery is a subsistence fishery primarily. And when it comes to the Quinault Coho, there's a small-scale commercial fishery.

So the type of fishery is important. And then second, how the upper bound of a goal range is used to inform, uh, the openings and closings of, of those fisheries. So in both of these cases, the exploitation is very small, and the department is looking to maximize opportunity as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the escapement goal is going to be met. So functionally, the upper bound doesn't factor into the decision process for opening closing those fisheries. Thank you.

Quick question for you. So I think I heard you say that the Kotzebue area was identified for— was it an increased or improved assessment? Uh, why was, why was that area selected given— I mean, we've heard this unfortunate theme, right, that, you know, fiscal issues. And I know that that is not the department's fault. I mean, And if you look at the price of a barrel of oil and how the state coffers are funded, I get it.

But I'm just kind of curious, in this environment, uh, why was that one selected?

Uh, Madam Chair, I can speak that from the perspective of AYK, and then for a broader statewide context, I'd need to reach out to some other folks. Within AYK, the, the Kotzebue area does have a notable subsistence fishery for chum salmon. And it does have a small but active commercial fishery. And just like the previous question, we fully recognize that assessment in that area has been lacking. We used to have a more predominant program decades ago.

Funding decreased, that much of that assessment was deprioritized and decommissioned, and we're looking to try to bring that back online. There are data gaps throughout AYK, but we have plans in place to address many of those. And the same source of funding that is helping to fuel the research initiatives for the Kotzebue area are helping to fill some of those other data gaps as well. So at least from my perspective, it was taking advantage of an excellent opportunity to fill a gap for AYK. Thank you.

Commissioner Forrest, can you answer the second part of my question? Like sort of the broader statewide context, why that area specifically was targeted for increased assessment? I'm trying to think back. Did we get— I think we got an increment to deal with AYK from the legislature that we put towards that, and we also had money through the treaty process that would go into that whole AYK area. So, and that was one of the areas that we felt we didn't have a very good assessment up in that northern part of the AYK District.

Okay, thank you. Other questions? Mr. Wood? I'd just like to clarify one thing. So back to the Norton Sound, Port Clarence, and Kotzebue area, when you go for king salmon, um, it— you have the Quinniok, North River, and Unalakleet River.

You are continuing to do the, you know, to monitor the Unalakleet River, but you're going to discontinue North River. Is that how I read this?

Or—. Through the chair, my apologies for the confusion on this one. Let me step back to kind of ground zero. What we currently have— we currently have a tower-based escapement goal on the North River, which is a tributary of the Unalakleet. Okay.

About about almost 20 years ago, we put a weir on the main stem of the Unalakleet. The combination of the North River assessment and that Unalakleet weir functionally gave us an assessment of the entire drainage. Our motivation for doing that, for having the tower and the weir, was to work towards a drainage-wide escapement goal, which would be more robust than a goal based on just a single tributary. We unfortunately lost access to the land where the weir operates. So the weir was discontinued this past season, which prevents us from moving forward with our desired plan to establish a drainage-wide goal, which leaves us at status quo.

The North River Tower will continue to operate and the North River goal will stay in place.

Okay, but, but right, it says North River right here. Action: discontinue. Like what I'm—. I'm, you know, I suspect you're looking at the table in the, in the memo. Is that correct?

Yeah. So look, that again— Table 1. Yeah, thanks for the clarification. So I started my, my presentation off by trying to draw attention to a change from the memo. We submitted the memo before we were notified by the land user that we no longer had access to the property.

So this is— that is a change. So you'll notice on that same table that it recommended at that time to discontinue the North River Tower because we were going to establish a brand new drainage-wide goal. We're basically pulling back on that, not establishing new goals, and sticking with status quo. Copy. Thank you.

Miss Irwin, has the department considered establishing a drainage-wide escapement goal for coho within this region or along the Yukon River? I know there's been concerns of downward trends slowly, but in comparison to the other stocks along the Yukon River, I think there's— there is cause for concern. So has the department considered establishing a drainage-wide Coho goal?

Through the chair, it— that conversation has come up regularly over cycles, over, over review cycles. Similar to some of the other discussions that you heard earlier, Coho salmon are notoriously difficult to assess. The primary tool that we have on the Yukon right now for drainage-wide assessment of Coho salmon is is a mainstem sonar. It's located in the lower Yukon River near Pilot Station. That project operates through the end of August and in some cases through the end of the first week of September.

There's still, uh, quite a bit of coho salmon run that continue to come in after that. So that particular sonar is only providing an index of drainage-wide abundance So we do not currently have the data to establish a traditional drainage-wide goal for Coho.

What would you need to be able to establish that?

Through the chair, right now, the, the environmental limitations to running that sonar project longer are real. It basically— the river starts to freeze freezes up. It's just not safe for equipment or staff to be out there much longer than that. So we would either need to have alternative assessment techniques to get a handle on the entirety of the drainage-wide run, or we would need to think through some strategies to establish a goal based on an index. So a component of the run rather than the whole run.

Thank you. And, um, does the department at this time have any of those alternative assessment techniques that you could be implementing, say, if the board decided to— or not the board, but the department decided that this was a priority? What are those alternative assessment techniques, and do you have any accessible right now to be doing this? Through the chair, thanks for the question. We don't have those techniques in place right now.

Well, let me step back. We don't have them in place for Yukon coho. The methodologies to use combinations of tributary assessments and harvest and other things and incorporate those into statistical models, those techniques are well developed and well applied throughout AYK. So we have the foundation. For Yukon coho, we need the pieces.

And similar to the conversation about Kotzebue chum, you know, we've had some, some recent investments in, in coho salmon research on the, on the Yukon. And right now we're, we're just getting some of those projects off the ground. Most of them are focused on truly understanding the spatial distribution and run timing of that species because it's been difficult to monitor. Once we have a handle on it, we can develop the assessment programs needed to fill into those models and other tech— other tools. Thank you.

Okay, I think we're a little past lunchtime. I was kind of hoping to get through the SOC memo, but I think we'll break. And unfortunately, gentlemen, we're going to drag you back in after lunch. So let's go ahead and, and pause, take a lunch break. Let's come back at 1:45, back on the record at 1:45.

Thank you.

All right, welcome back. Time is 1:53. We're back on the record, and, um, before lunch we paused right before getting into the Stock of Concern Memorandum. For the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim. So, gentlemen, welcome back.

Thank you for being here, and I'll let you get after it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Aaron Tiernan, and I'm the regional management coordinator of the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim region, or AYK. With me is Zach Lillard, the regional research coordinator for the region.

This review represents the outcome of the department's stock of concern evaluation conducted prior to each regular meeting of the board for the AYK region. A comprehensive summary of the findings is available in the department's Stock of Concern Memorandum referenced in RC 8. For this evaluation, regional department staff conducted an assessment of the 26 salmon stock units in the region. Escapement, harvest, and yield data from 2020 through 2024 were assessed. To determine if any of the stocks met the criteria for a stock of concern designation as established in the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries.

2025 Data were not used because fisheries and run assessments were ongoing at the time of publication. However, preliminary information did provide relevant context about future run abundance trends. Following our summary of the results, which includes maintaining a current stock of concern designation, revision of a current designation, and the establishment of a new one. I will begin with the Norton Sound Subdistricts 5 and 6, Shaktoolik and Unalakleet King Salmon. Past studies have shown adult salmon bound for the Shaktoolik and Unalakleet rivers intermingle in nearshore marine waters and are harvested in both subdistricts.

As such, these subdistricts are managed as a single stock unit to achieve escapement goals and to provide harvest to king salmon. This stock group has been listed as a stock yield concern since 2004. Action plans were developed at prior board meetings, therefore a management plan already exists. There is a single escapement goal within this stock group on the North River, which is a tributary of the Unalakleet River. Harvest from the most recent 5 years fell within the 2010 through 2019 historical range in all years except for 2024, when the lowest recorded harvest occurred.

However, the escama goal was achieved only once in the most recent 5 years. Additionally, harvests have shown a steady decline over the last 5 years due to a combination of decreasing abundance and conservative management actions. As a result, there continues to be a chronic inability to achieve expected yields, and the department is recommending maintaining the current stock yield concern designation for Norton Sound Subdistricts 5 and 6 King Salmon. Next, we will shift south to discuss Yukon River King Salmon, which has also been listed as a stock yield concern since 2004. Action plans were developed at prior board meetings and a management plan already exists.

Conservative management, management actions have been taken over the last 5 years to achieve the largest possible escapements given extremely poor run sizes of Yukon River King Salmon. These actions resulted in the harvests— in harvests that have been below 2,000 fish since 2020, with most of those fish being harvested incidentally during non-salmon fishing opportunities. Even with such small harvests, no Yukon River King— Yukon River drainage King Salmon escapement goals were achieved from 2020 through 2024. If harvest had been reduced to zero during this time frame, escapement goals would still not have been achieved. As a result, there has been a chronic inability to achieve escapement goals, and the department is recommending a change in designation from stock yield concern to stock management concern for Yukon River King Salmon.

Finally, the discussion will remain on the Yukon with fall, fall chum salmon. After over 10 years of relatively good fall chum salmon returns, production crashed unexpectedly in 2020, resulting in record low run abundances. Conservative management actions have been taken over the last 5 years to achieve the largest possible escapements given extremely poor run sizes of fall chum salmon. These actions have resulted in record low harvest levels, with annual harvests being less than 7,000 fish. This compares to the 2010 through 2019 historical range of 74,000 to 578,000 fish.

Even with such small harvests, the Yukon River drainage fall chum salmon escapement goal was not achieved in any year from 2020 through 2024. If harvest had been reduced to zero during this time frame, the drainage-wide goal would still not have been achieved. As a result, the chronic inability to achieve escapement goals exists, and the department is recommending designating Yukon River fall chum salmon as a stock of management concern. All other AYK region stocks did not meet, meet the criteria for a stock of concern designation during this evaluation cycle. Although some stocks within the region experienced significant declines over the most recent 5 years, they did not meet the stock of concern criteria established in regulations.

In particular, Yukon River summer chum and coho salmon harvest fell below historical ranges in all of the most recent 5 years. However, for both species, total run size in a subset of those years was large enough to provide for additional harvest had opportunity not been restricted by necessary measures to conserve co-migrating king and fall chum salmon. This limits the ability to estimate what additional harvest of summer chum and coho salmon could have been. Therefore, we are not recommending stock of yield concern designation for either Yukon River summer chum or coho salmon. So in summary, the department is recommending, recommending to maintain Norton Sound Subdistrict 5 and Subdistrict 6 king salmon as stock of yield concern, revising the designation of Yukon River king salmon from a stock of yield concern to stock of management concern, and designating Yukon River fall chum salmon as a stock management concern.

Thank you for your time today, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Madam Chair.

Mr. Owen. Thank you for that. Um, I recognize that, uh, I don't know how long you guys have been with the department, if it was back in 2004, but I'm just wondering, why did it take from 2024 to 2025 for the Yukon Kings to be in a stock of yield concern and change to management, but we're looking at designating Yukon Falchum in only 5 years to a stock of management concern. I'm just wondering the rationale between waiting so long for the Kings and then doing this designation for Falchum just within the last— based on the last 5 years of data.

Through the chair, Member Erwin, thank you for the question. So for the Fall Chum Salmon, we immediately moved it into a stock management concern designation because it has not achieved any, any escapement goals within the most recent 5 years. And prior to that, you know, as I mentioned, the stock was performing relatively well for a long period of time. And so for the Kings, it was maintained yield concern because there has been periodic years where the, where the run achieved escapement goals. It just hadn't been consistent for a 5-year period of time.

Thank you.

When you say it hadn't been consistent for a 5-year period of time, describe what that means. You've made it in 5 years.

Yeah, Madam Chair. So we use the criteria that we're looking at the most recent 5 years and when we've defined chronic inability to be like 5 out of 5, all 5 of those years. So if the goal— if the run had achieved escapement goals at least one of those years, then it wouldn't meet that chronic inability criteria. Thank you. What is the escapement been in other years where it had not made it?

Was it just barely below or was it significantly below? Um, stand by one and I will pull that up, or I'll defer that to Mr. Lillard here.

Uh, through the chair, for the record, Zach Lillard, regional research coordinator. Just as an example, the period of time from 2014 to approximately 2019, the majority of Yukon King goals met or exceeded their, their respective goals. So it's a mixture of tributary goals, and then of course we have the, um, uh, the international goal for the Canadian origin stock. So there was a period of years in there where we're meeting most tributary goals in Alaska, and we were meeting or exceeding the international border agreed to, you know, the escapement goal established for the Canadian stock. That helps?

I don't think so. Maybe I'm not asking this right. So you just cited 2014 through 2019? Is that what you did? Did I miss that?

Through the Chair, you asked for an example of prior years, what the escapement goals have— what the escapement goal performance has been. That would result in the department not, not changing the stock of concern designation for Yukon Chinook. And the criteria for switching from a yield concern to a management concern is, as Aaron said, 5 consecutive years of failing to meet escapement goals. And so I was drawing your attention to the period of time from about 2014 through 2019. Where we were in fact meeting or even exceeding escapement goals, which would be the— which would prevent us from recommending that change.

Thank you. That clears it up for me. I was clearly not thinking straight after lunch. The one on page 3, the last paragraph where you guys talk about sort of your summaries, you said although some stocks in the AYK region experienced significant declines over the most recent 5 years, they did not meet the stock of concern. Can you describe significant?

How does the department describe or define significant?

Yeah, Madam Chair.

So we, we use that terminology because there have, you know, specifically for fall chum, you know, we have seen a good run of production previously. However, you know, here in recent times, it's definitely dropped. It hasn't remained steady over the last 5 years. There has been, you know, 3 of the last 5 years has achieved the escament goal, but there has been other years where it's been pretty bad. We have not met the goal by a long shot.

But it's just, it's been quite variable here in the recent years. Thank you. And just for a reminder for folks, and correct me if I'm wrong, in terms of severity of these designations, it goes from stock of yield, stock of management, and then stock of conservation concern. Is that right?

Where the stock of conservation concern would be the most, most concerning, I would say. Yes, that's correct. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Thank you. I've just got a question.

That you could educate me on. So trying to understand chum, it sounds like summer chum, summer chum genetically are difficult to distinguish throughout all of coastal western Alaska. Yes. Okay. But the fall chum you can parse out genetically from the summer chum in coastal western Alaska, is that correct?

Yes, portions of the fall chum. Well, yeah, portions of the fall chum, you know, specifically in the Yukon, you can tease those out. Okay, so within the Yukon, is the genetically— is the Yukon fall chum different than, say, the Kotzebue fall chum genetically? Yes. So you can tell the difference between, like, this Yukon River fall chum is failing to meet escapement because it in particular is It's not just a trend, say like kings or Chinook, you know, throughout the state.

It is in that river system in particular for fall chum. Yes, specifically in the Yukon, they've been having— they have not been achieving escapement. But I will say up in Kotzebue, those fall chum, they've been having or they've been experiencing a period of decreased abundance as well. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Swinson.

This question is for Board Member Wood. Could you restate the question that you just asked him about distinguishing fall from—. What did you say? What stock? The fall stock from what stock?

Fall chum versus a summer chum. And that— and he said yes to that question. Thank you. Mr. Swenson. Isn't— correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the reasons it's hard to tell this genetic difference is because the Kuskokwim and the Yukon River used to run together geologically, and now they don't?

Isn't that one of the major issues with trying to figure out this genetics of that?

I'll defer that to Mr. We're going to bring a geneticist to the table, our chief scientist here. It's nice to have a—.

Madam Chair, Member Godfrey, or sorry, Svensson. Sorry.

Yes, that is one of the theories. We're trying to figure out why the Yukon River Chum and Chinook and to some extent Coho look very similar to Kuskokwim as well as Nushagak. So some of the theories are that there were connections during the glacial maximum when the water was lower and the rivers ran further out and there's some indication that some of the river mouths were very close. There are also upper river connections that may have been open during times when there were glaciers in the mountains diverting water. So there are a few papers I could point you towards, but the most reasonable explanation for what we see in coastal western Alaska, especially with summer chum, Chinook is that the— there were connections that we don't see these right now, but they were present probably as early as a few thousand years ago in some situations.

So thank you. So, Bill, I think it's my understanding that we, we can distinguish fall chum from summer chum, and we use that at our pilot station. We, we have a— we know that summer chum and fall chum overlap, but as we run through, you got to speak a little closer into the mic, please. Well, we have a definite difference of— we can tell the, the number of fall chum versus summer chum at our pilot station count. And number 2 is that as we're looking at bycatch, for instance, of these species, there's no differentiation between summer chums between the Yukon, Cusco, in, in, um, Unukleet and those areas up north.

But we can tell fall chum in that differentiation out in the Bering Sea by catch. Madam Chair, thank you, Commissioner. I've, um, yes, we can distinguish fall run from summer run very, very well, and even in some smaller areas Fall Run, like Kotzebue, are distinguishable even from Fall Run in the Yukon.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. So looking at the last paragraph on page 3 again, I think one of the things I'm seeing in the ability— the wide variance in strengths within the tributaries and other areas in the Yukon, I think shows the Yukon's the exception to the rule because at a river of around 2,000 miles, it's— it seems almost impossible to manage this as a single unit. We're looking at, you know, you can have a great run on the Anvik but terrible passage at the border, and that's skewed the numbers for the whole river. Or the inverse, you could have a strong, strong run at the border and, and then terrible runs through the Anvik, or like we're experiencing right now, the China and Salcha.

And one of the things I'm seeing is, does this combination of this model lead to the possibility— granted, right now the numbers are so terrible, this is a very remote possibility and not going— we're not going to run into it for a while, but overfishing of a weak stock when there are strong subsets within this. I'm just having trouble, you know, I think what I'm seeing here is just a system weakness, systematic weakness by combining this huge river and massive ecosystem into one unit. It's just a really hard thing for me to wrap my head around. And so that's more two cents than a question, but thank you. I'm sure if I could respond to that.

So with kings and fall chum, portion of those are Canadian origin. So we manage it as one stock because we have a mixed stock fishery coming up our waters. Summer chums we manage less, more discreetly because that's one stock. It's all in U.S. waters. So once you get that Canadian influence that comes into the treaty, you almost have to by default treat it as one stock and take a management approach because we have international obligations to pass fish.

So, quick follow-up. Does, does, but say, you know, if we've got a weak run going up through the Canadian border and a very strong run going up the Anvik, wouldn't a more localized assessment policy allow for more targeted and strategic fishing opportunities where none would otherwise exist on a single drainage system? Yeah, as long as it's occurring within that drainage and isn't occurring on the mixed stock heading up, we could do that. The treaty and the agreement we signed allows for a U.S. stock, even if it's fall chum, or U.S. stock, even if it's a king stock that's all entirely in U.S. waters in that tributary, we could harvest those. Thank you, that's wonderful to hear.

Mr. Irwin, um, what is the efficacy of continuing to apply MSY-derived, uh, SEGs and BEGs on a fishery like the Yukon Chinook that haven't had a commercial opening in years and are— is very unlikely to have a commercial opening in our lifetime? Are there different methodologies that the department can use that are based on prioritizing conservation or subsistence rather than MSY?

Uh, through the chair, thanks for that question. Um, I guess maybe I'll step back and start by saying that, um, an MSY-based goal, or maximum sustained yield-based goal, is first— it, it is the directive of the department through our existing policy. To first and foremost make sure that escapement goals provide for sustained yield and then to the extent possible maximum sustained yield. So an MSY-based goal is simply a subset of goals that would support that primary mandate of sustained yield.

The MSY-based goals also provide that lower-bound breakpoint below which if we see runs that are underperforming, so the runs coming back to the mouth of the river are not large enough to even meet the lower bound of the escapement goal, it provides that clear direction to the department to cease directed fishing on those, on those poorly performing stocks. So it has that conservation hook kind of built into it. Conceptually, in most applications, an MSY-based goal is going to be somewhat central centralized within the full range of escapements that would support sustained yield. Right? So certainly by definition there is sustained yield at levels that are, you know, at escapement goal ranges that could be higher than an MSY-based goal or lower.

But it comes with tradeoffs. Right? Clearly a goal that is higher than an MSY-based goal, it would by definition result in a decreased expectation of long-term average yield in the future, but it comes with the cost of needing to close fisheries because the lower bound is higher, right, when the runs actually probably could support that directed harvest. The opposite is true if the goal was to be dropped down, still be within that sustainable yield range. It comes with the risk of fishing into— when it provides the— could provide the opportunity for more directed harvest when run sizes are smaller, but it comes with that increased conservation risk that people would like to avoid in many situations.

So taking the approach of an MSY-based goal is somewhat kind of like splitting the splitting the middle and trying to find the best possible compromise for a wide range of run sizes. And currently, as I mentioned to kind of kick this off, is that is currently the department's directive through policy. Follow up on that quickly. So in these instances where we have this chronic inability to meet these goals, and as the department considers management actions to to take that, I mean, i.e., closing fisheries and all the things. And as we sort of tier down or tier up, depending upon how you look at it, in terms of the severity of the concern around the stock, does the department consider SMSY instead of straight up MSY in some of the potential actions?

I don't know, I'm just kind of curious. Through the chair, maybe just a terminology clarification and then we can build from there. But SMSY and MSY are just two different ways that we speak about the same thing. The S stands for spawning, so spawners that would maximize sustained yield. So we often see that designation reports and things like that.

And MSY is just the, the acronym for maximum in calculations that I've seen at this table, I've seen MSY goals that are significantly lower than SMSY.

I mean, SMS— I mean, MSY is often in sort of expressed in a range, right? Sometimes. But like, um, so I'm, I'm curious about that. Um, and I open it up just— Commissioner, thank you for your answer though. Yeah, let me, let me think about that a little bit and I'll get back to you.

I just got to wrap my head around that a little bit. I could be way off base here. What's interesting about this discussion with the Yukon is we're going from a yield concern to a management concern. But in essence, we, in terms of management actions we're going to take, we've already closed all the fisheries. There's not much more management action we're going to take under changing this designation.

So, right. And I understand that the management actions are restricted. But what I'm getting at is that in terms forward direction within the action plans in terms of what does recovery mean? I guess that that's kind of where I'm getting at. And is straight MSY the appropriate sort of assessment tool versus an SMSY that may or may not be different?

Just grub for thought. Again, that's for stocks that are entirely within the U.S. basin, we can set those. If it's a treaty one, we got to negotiate those with Canada. That they may want to get back to a commercial fishery opportunity up in those, in those systems in Canada. So of course, thank you, Mr. Irwin.

Um, so in order for us to move from a stock of management concern to a stock of conservation concern, as we've mentioned before, there needs to be a sustainable escapement threshold set. And I recognize that the department at this time doesn't have a model in order to set that, but I'm I'm curious as to why it's been 21 years since the Sustainable Salmon Policy was initiated. And in the definition of the SET, which is 39.2239, it states that the SET can be estimated based on the lower ranges of historical escapement levels, and then goes on to say the SET is lower than the lower bound of the BEG and lower than the lower bound of the SEG. The SET is established by the department in consultation with the board. So for me, it— the regulation doesn't tell us we need a model.

However, I recognize the department are the scientists and understand how to, how to set that. Um, but why hasn't the department assumed that an SET could be set based on these instructions, just setting it lower than the lower bound of the SEG and the lower bound of the BEG, given it's been 21 years and we're now in a space where we might have to start considering a conservation concern on some of our stocks. Thank you.

Aren't you glad we told you to buckle up? I was about to phone a friend, Madam Chair.

Um, those are very good points. Uh, we— first of all, that, uh, the language that you read there is very— sounds very specific, but there's a very wide range beneath it, right? So we set the lower bounds of our escapement goals in areas that are already really fairly conservative, trying to achieve the balance that my colleague Mr. Liller talked about earlier, about balancing conservation with availability of the resource to the people of the state. So there is some space below the lower bound of the escapement goal at which, in almost all of those, there is some yield possible. In other words, you get more fish back from the number of fish that you put into the escapement.

So somewhere in that range, though, you run up against something else, and that would be the biological reality of whether 2 fish in a stream can replicate and produce enough fish for the future, or whether they just wink out of existence. And I just picked 2 because one male, one female, right? Obviously there's some number between that and the lower bound of the escapement goal where you start to be in danger of the population no longer continuing. That is a very difficult thing to measure. Because you're also exposed to the changes in the environment and the luck of the draw in who spawns with whom.

So what we would want to do is to try to set it in a more conservative place than where an actual SET would be. We'll try to set it above what an actual SET would be in some range where we would know that we are getting close to it. All of that is theory right now. There are lots of ideas out there. The department is actively investigating methods and rationales to come up with a threshold.

Commissioner? Yeah, this is a tough question because it's underneath the BEG, you know, so what is it? Is it what it takes to genetically keep a stock alive, that's probably 100 fish, you know, from a geneticist's point of view, or 500 fish. Is that really what we want to set the SCT at, or is it something higher than that? And then, then when you get into a fishery like this, which is a mixed stock fishery, you know, what is the SCT?

You could have an SCT set for the one stock that is the lowest in that stock, and then you might have yields across the entirety. We're giving it a lot of thought. We haven't done it for 20-some years, but there's— what is it, the perpetuation of that stock? I don't think in Alaska, anywhere in those drainages that we're talking about, we have a quote-unquote conservation stock in the United States. I don't think we're in the danger of losing those stocks.

We've cut off harvest, and even you look at King Salmon, you still got 16,000, 17,000 king salmon going up past Pilot Station. There's— that's not a conservation concern yet to me. If we get down to, you know, a couple hundred, yeah, we got a conservation concern. But I don't know what, what those numbers are. But before we start setting them, because once we set them, they're going to start triggering all kinds of other actions like ESA listings and a variety of other things.

We want to be very careful about how we set these things moving forward. So we're giving it some thought. Just a second. So in terms of the department's internal process about thinking about this. I'm curious, do you have an internal goal to, or a timetable upon which you are considering how to do this or when to do this?

And the reason that I ask that is because this is not going away. And, and matter of fact, what we're seeing I think is increased frequency in these types of discussions and these types of numbers. And while it may not be applicable directly to the, the, this cycle and the fisheries under consideration, I can think of at least one right off the top of my head that's going to be up, I think, year after next, where you are under that, you know, 300-500 fish threshold for Chinook. So yeah, and then you get into small stocks that, like, we have some stocks in Southeast Alaska which are 100 stock, 100 fish, and, and that's the escaping goals, 115 fish. So We're giving this a lot of thought, you know, just because there were 115 fish and that's maintaining itself, is that a conservation concern because it's underneath these genetic thresholds?

Yeah, we're— I don't know the timeline. It's, it's— I talked to my scientists a lot about it, how you get there. I think the, the science on establishing BEGs and SEGs a lot better than the science of developing what that SET is, especially when you're starting to deal with small stocks mixed stocks. Well, I appreciate the department's prioritization and attention to it because I think, I think that lacking some of that guidance at this table, it's going to get real complicated real fast. Um, Mr. Urban, follow up, and then Mr. Godfrey.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, I just want to mention that it's— I think it's, it's hard for us to say that this, this stock is not in a conservation concern or that it won't be very shortly, only because it's a chicken or the egg situation with conservation concern. We have to have an SCT set in order to say that it's a conservation concern. So I just wanted to bring that back up, that this— I feel like there needs to be a lot of clarity for both the public and the department and the board on how we move forward with this cyclical nature of we need an SCT in order to have conservation concern, but we need a conservation concern to understand our SCT, right?

So just bringing that up, and thank you, Commissioner Commissioner for your answer. I think we need a definition of what a conservation concern is. That would help to start this whole discussion. Definitions help. Mr. Godfrey.

I, I think you answered the question before I could ask it in your comments just before Board Member Erwin's comments. But when you say, you know, at what point do you address you know, the stock and how granular, granular you're going to get, or the microcosm of a specific stock that's 500 or 300 fish. I wanted to ask what currently is the lowest stock that we've done that for? And you just said in Southeast, there are 100, and you made a comment to 115. Is that a, is that a one-off, or are there multiple systems systems where we're, we're doing that and we have declared that for a stock under 500 fish that's known to be under 500 fish.

I'll have to get back to you, but I know there's more than one across the state. Thank you. I thought you'd have to. Mr. Wood. Thank you.

I don't want to belabor this point because I agree with what the department's recommendations, but I I would like to ask, at what point, um, when this board up here deals with time, area, method, and means, and you are giving us numbers to manage a fishery by, when you start having fisheries that can no longer support the distance, either in fat content or size, to these remote areas, um, like I'm talking to the fall chum or these larger kings that need to get into 2,000 miles into Canada, at what point do you start looking at the environmental backdrop to what is going on here to factor in even if you stop all fishing, they're still decreasing. So when do you start factoring that in?

Well, I think we factor that in by having a time series of data. So as production goes down, your spawner-recruit relationship changes. So the question is, is do you set yourself— you know, right now in the Yukon, we're seeing fish size decrease, fecundity is decreasing, but our escapement goal is based on some longer-term data set. Cyclic conditions going to change, we're going to get back to larger fish with ocean conditions? We don't know that yet.

We, we can predict that based on ocean temperatures it's not going to increase, but it may increase and it may get back to those levels of production. I think that's what a lot of users on the river hope. But do we— if we account for lower fecundity, then we're going to have to get to those same levels of yield that have been historically there. We're going to have to increase the goals. And we've already got the fisheries completely closed, so increasing the goals is only going to prolong the time period you're going to get to those goals.

So yeah, we're giving this a lot of thought internally because environmental conditions are definitely affecting salmon productivity, and, and how do you factor that into setting your level of concern for those stocks, and how do you set them as changing escapement goals? That's why we change these escapement goals every 3 to 4 years, every, every cycle we come into the board.

Mr. Owen, sorry, just for the record, I just want to state that there is a definition of conservation concern in the Sustainable Salmon Policy under F6, just so that the public and folks are aware. Thank you.

Okay, anything else? Oh, go ahead.

Through the chair, I just wanted to maybe help complement the response that our commissioner gave to Mr. Wood and just provide some additional information about the support that the department's bringing to AYK in particular on fish health and issues that speak, I think, to exactly what you were bringing up. And so as an example, there are— there's always some level of natural mortality that occurs to fish as they, you know, arrive at the mouth of a river and traverse those extra long distances to their spawning grounds. Generally speaking, though, when those runs are really large and robust, that natural mortality is— I wouldn't say that it's insignificant, but from the perspective of making annual management decisions, it's, it's a relatively, relatively small consideration. In recent years, though, with those runs declining, the department and through the commissioner's leadership, we have been allocating a lot of effort towards getting at those natural mortality pieces, right? Our Salmon Ocean Ecology Program is doing a lot of work on fish health in the marine environment to improve our forecasting of adult run sizes, specifically for stocks like the Yukon.

Our pathology group is spending a a lot of effort to get at fish health and establishing fish health monitoring programs that operate in river with the, the hope of being able to develop tools to actually estimate natural mortality and integrate that into our assessment and decision-making frameworks. Those are things that, at least in western Alaska, are largely unprecedented. And but they're, you know, they've, they've been a focus of the department over the last couple of years. And hoping that we have some new tools in the future to bring that, that stuff to bear.

Very good. Thank you for that. Um, I don't see any more questions, so I think that wraps up staff presentations and reports. Let's go ahead and stand down for a second, and then we'll get into giving our recommendations.

All right, welcome back. The time is 2:54. Annie, are we good to go? Okay, thank you. Um, so at this time we're going to go ahead and take up the, um, stock of concern memorandums and, um, give the department some guidance on their recommendations of whether or not the board agrees, um, or does not, as the case may be.

And, uh, we'll go forward with how that develops into action plans potentially, um, for this cycle. So with that, we'll go ahead and take them up in the order in which they were presented to us in the reports, um, beginning with the last Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Chignik.

Madam Chair, specific to Chignik early-run sockeye salmon, I move that the board adopt the department's recommendation for removing the Chignik early-run sockeye salmon stock from management of concern designation. Is there a second? Second. Are there any objections? Member Irwin objects.

Okay, would you like to speak to your objection, Member Irwin?

Thank you, uh, Chair VanDort. So from what we heard today, I'm uncomfortable delisting this early-run sockeye species, uh, with the lack of GSI data from 2022, 2024, and 2025, and any discrepancies between the, the genetic data and then the, um, the run estimates of the department? Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Um, to somebody at the department, um, I understand what Miss Irwin said in regards to the GSI information, but stock of concern designations around the state that don't have that genetic information available, or conducted in a specific area where there is a designation. This is, this is the normal process to do this. I mean, this is not something unusual, correct?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that's correct.

Everyone, yeah, thank you for that point, Mr. Carpenter. I guess I'll just note that the board makes their decisions based on the best available science. Science, and for me there is better available science that's out there based on this genetic data, but we just don't have access to it right now. So I recognize that this might be different procedurally than other areas because we have this additional information. However, I think that best available science means what is available.

This GIS data is available, it's just not available to us today to read for our consideration. Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I've been trying to understand the Chignik and the different lakes and the returns, uh, for a while now, and, um, understand that, um, the difficulty of trying to understand the genetics and the early run versus the late run on versus the lake they're going to and environmental conditions of that lake, but I honestly, with the data that's at hand right now, I have a really hard time saying that this is the right time for delisting.

And so there's too much, like, question in my head right now. It's like we don't have all the information. So especially on these lakes in particular that have generated so much question over the last few years, and I only say this by going back and listening to the last board cycle to get this information. But to not have all the information at hand right now and then approve this recommendation, I'm not totally comfortable with.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that comment, Mr. Wood. You know, I think that's, that's relative for sure. I think that the thing that I'm a little concerned about is delisting it or not is that the information that's being requested or the analysis of the GSI information that's being requested, that's a function of the commissioner and the legislature to appropriate money to do that, which we have no ability to influence whatsoever.

And so So this could go on for a very long time where we don't have the analysis on this information, and this stock will potentially remain listed like this if the justification to keep it there instead of delisting it. And so I just, I'm a little cautious about leaving things on the books in light of speculative amounts of funding that could come down the road someday. Question for the commissioner on that. Let's talk about funding for a second because we got an RC that speaks to some of the funding in RC 16 where it has been independently funded. Is that just the collection of the sampling or is that the analysis of those samples that is paid for externally?

Madam Chair, this is— for the record, this is Bill Templin. Yes, that— the analysis, the genetic— the laboratory analysis of those samples is also covered under that funding. That is paid for externally? Yeah. Okay, so—.

But that's not— it hasn't necessarily been continuous through all years, but—. Right, but for the last— Since 2022? Yes. So the, the information contained in RC16 is correct, Madam Chair? That's great.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. So I just want to add something to this discussion. So I hate to get into deliberations, but I struggled with this one. I asked my staff a lot of questions on whether to recommend a delisting. And when, when I asked my staff, we, we had run the model that we've historically run, which without the genetic analysis, and it clearly showed that based on that model that we'd met the criteria that the board had generated, developed to delist the stock.

So then I said, well, run it with the genetic piece, and we also met that criteria. I think the question you're struggling with is how comfortable are you knowing that there's actions triggered by this action plan with delisting, and how much do you want— how sure are you that this stock is recovered or not? That's your call. That, that's clearly the board's call. Your call.

You can, you can say, yeah, we, we're, we're not comfortable even though it met the criteria, if we still feel it's a stock of concern. That's your call. But it's our, it's our recommendation based on the science we're seeing in terms of the, the genetic data and the non-genetic data that you've met the criteria that you established. But again, it's your call as to whether you want to still maintain that stock of concern and the action plans that are out there. I will also tell you that Just because you eliminate a stock of concern doesn't mean necessarily that you can't implement those actions that resulted in the rebuilding of the stock.

You did that with the Sitna River. You know, you left the corridors in place in regulation. So you have that option available moving forward too. But it's your call as to whether you want to leave it or not. It's our responsibility to report on to you the data that we have.

Thank you. And I guess that's part of my, my hesitancy is that you have the data, but we don't have the data, at least in terms of 2024 and also into 2025, which are 3 of the 5 years that we're, you know, asked to consider in delisting. So I hear you and I appreciate your comments, but that's, I kind of guess, a little bit of the crux of my hesitancy. Mr. Swenson.

I'm hesitant also to delist this. And because, you know, the sustainable salmon policy says you shouldn't overharvest non-targeting fish when harvesting targeted fish. You delist this, and I can see the possibility in my eyes is now all of a sudden the reds are being targeted, are being targeted, and there's more fishing going on for those reds. And there's— thus, even though there's things in place to, you know, for the king salmon, I'm just not real comfortable with, with that. That's just my opinion.

Quick question, Mr. Chamberlain. Where is the action plan and regulation? I was looking for the actual action plan because I was looking for it on the website. I was looking for it. I went back to RC4 from the deliberations from the last time, but then the board amended RC4.

So I was trying to nail down the actual delisting criteria that the board adopted at that meeting because it was amended from RC4, and I can't find the action plan for that stock anywhere. Forrest. Madam Chair, so the— we also encountered that same issue. And what we relied on in crafting the stock of concern memo and the recommendation to delist are the delisting criteria that are found in the meeting summary for that statewide meeting in March of 2017. 3, I believe it was.

Yeah, I was struggling with that too because we went back and listened to some of the, the, the comments and the deliberation, and one of the things that confused me was that reference also in the footnote that you have to $210,000 by July 10th, which of course was not met under any scenario, I don't think. But I think the board amended to remove that language, and that's what I was trying to verify because it if that language still existed, then that brings a whole new question into whether or not the criteria were met. But I don't think it is in there, but I was trying to verify that when I was looking at the— looking for the action plan.

Yeah.

So it is— I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's in the February 2023 meeting, the meeting summary.

The delisting criteria are described there. And in the— okay. Do you have them in front of you? Can you read them? Yeah.

So I'll just read what's written there. It says that the board agreed to the criteria but clarified that it should instead reference the OEG and its associated numbers and also say early run instead of July 10. Right. So how does the department interpret that? Yeah, that was challenging.

We basically just— we looked at the OEG for the early run and did we meet that goal or not. And what about the reference to $210,000.

Well, I think with the language that says that it should instead reference the OEG, we inferred that that meant that the $210,000 was not a—. Was gone. I don't, I don't disagree with you. I just want to make sure that we're consistent, like we agree on that. Okay, thank you for that.

Um, Mr. Chamberlain, then Mr. Owen. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, in chewing on this, I, I find Member Carpenter's and Member Erwin's comments both equally persuasive. Member Carpenter, you know, he's singing my song when he says regulation needs to be predictable or create a predictable pattern and uniformly enforced. However, at the same time, if there's a flaw with that, Member Erwin's arguments regarding the reliability and validity and the quality of the data are very much done.

We're not operating in a vacuum here. We're dealing with a resource that can be depleted. So we want to have the best information available. So I struggle— I'm struggling on this one right now. I think the Commissioner's comment that even using that formula they would have made that goal does carry a little sway with me.

I'm, I'm, I'm still very much on the fence on this one. So with that, yeah, that's where I'm—. Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm just having a hard time also with the fact that we didn't have this delisting criteria beforehand or access to the action plan.

So also coming into this without that is difficult to help make the decision. But I thank Forrest for sharing with us what was in the meeting summary. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Maybe this question is to Director Bowers. So we have an OEG and we have a listed stock right now. And part of the recovery plan was to basically focus on that OEG. If we leave this stock, if we don't delist this stock, Are you still going to focus on the OEG, or is there foregone harvest potentially that could be lost because it's still listed?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. So yeah, the, the OEG is the goal that we manage to now.

You know, the If I recall correctly, I haven't looked at the action plan, the details of the management measures in the action plan recently. But if I recall correctly, there, there aren't many or any restrictions on the Chignik Management Area sockeye fishery that resulted from the action plan. There were restrictions in the Alaska— South Alaska Peninsula fishery that could be triggered. So yeah, there's potentially some foregone yield that could incur— could occur if the stock of concern and action plan remain in place.

And as we— I guess just to Follow-up on that. As we talked about earlier, you know, we do have the King Salmon Action Plan in place for Chignik River king salmon. And, you know, there's been some foregone sockeye harvest that's resulted from, from that action, you know, actions in that action plan. And that's going to— that's going to remain in place for the time being. So with respect to the sockeye management actions, particularly in 2023, I think— and I'm not quite sure about '24, um, '25 is a little bit different because you had, you know, pretty strong return that showed up relative to the last decade or so— but weren't there management restrictions on sockeye in Chignik Lagoon from two or from, you know, only two days a week That's correct, and I don't—.

I'd have to— I'd have to do some looking into that, whether those were based on, you know, just escapement performance or if they were a result of the action plan. So a comment, and then I'll go. I see, I see, Mr. Swenson. Um, in thinking about You have a group of stakeholders that have recognized the importance of genetic information in the management of their fishery. They have literally put their money where their mouth is and have funded this independently amongst the fleet and are requesting that that data be used in the management of its fishery.

I don't see that very often. And based on the RCs that I've read and received, there's question amongst them. I mean, I think if you're conceding 2023, I think you would have— given the GSI data that I see in the RCs that have been presented, you would have made your, I think, lower end escapement goal, but just by a little bit. And I would also note that that's lacking GSI information for the— almost the entire month of June. So, you know, I think you would have made the goal.

I'm conceding that you made the goal in 2023. The question for me is about 2024 and 2025 when you overlay that GSI data over the presumed curve. And that's the information that I don't have. And if the board is asked to consider delisting based on the last 3 out of 5 years, or 3 out of 5 years, I should not necessarily qualify it as the last, but 3 out of 5 years, I don't have that information. And that's what I'm struggling with.

I think for 2023, I would concede, yeah, lacking the GSI data for 2022 because there was no funding for it, okay.

But we're basically— potentially ignoring the ability to access the 2024 and 2025 data and potentially making a premature decision. That's kind of how I see this. And I'm not so concerned about foregone harvest in this instance since it is an action plan to rebuild a stock of, of concern. So I guess that's kind of how I'm thinking about it a little bit. I'm interested in other thoughts.

And so, Mr. Swenson, go ahead.

Forrest, my question to you would be— Forrest, my question to you would be, so we have a king salmon stock of return, and you're talking about if you delist the sockeye, then, you know, obviously you're going to there's gonna be more harvest of the sockeye? 'Cause you're talking about, you don't wanna, there's talk about losing the potential of some of those fish. Well, if you allow more sockeye to be taken, how's that gonna affect the kings? I mean, they're gonna be catching more kings, aren't they? Through the chair, Mr. Svenson, not necessarily.

Like I said, there's still a king salmon stock and management concern in place with an associated action plan, and that action plan calls for fishery restrictions. So, you know, that there's going to be foregone sockeye harvest to conserve king salmon.

Do you have— how do you— is there a sonar there? So there's a weir, a weir, weir, and we fly some aerial surveys in the tributaries as well? Well, I've seen— and I don't mean to get into something else, but I've seen the same thing happening in other areas where we fish one fish a lot, and that certainly— there's a mixed stock fishery there, and I don't know how— I mean, I guess you can fool with closings and openings and so on and so forth. But I— to me, if you're going to— if they— if you delist this, there's going to be more sockeye available to catch, and I think you're going to end up catching more kings. But that's just me.

Thanks.

Forest, then Mr. Wood. Thanks, Madam Chair. I'd just like to briefly respond to that, you know, and using 2025 as an example where we took unprecedented restrictions to conserve Chinook salmon above and beyond what's called for in the action plan. And we did meet the king salmon goal in 2025, and that was in a year when we had, you know, a relatively robust sockeye return to the Chignik drainage. You know, the total run, total escapement was about 1 million fish.

So You know, there's foregone harvest there. And I think it demonstrates the department's commitment to Chinook conservation that we went above and beyond what was called for in the action plan in the face of a relatively robust sockeye return. Justin, can I speak to that for a second? Okay. Speaking to sockeye.

Yes. I lost my train of thought here, but I still— you just— the Chignik king salmon just made its escapement, correct? So how do you build a run that just made its escapement by delisting the sockeye, which is going to allow it to be fished more? That's my question. I don't know if that was kind of a comment or was it rhetorical?

Were you asking for—. I mean, if he has an answer to that, I'm just saying that just because you barely make the king salmon escapement, you want to build that king salmon run. And now if you're taking more sockeye, I find it difficult that that's going to happen. Well, Commissioner, Yeah, so we struggle with this across the entire state. You know, we, we, this is the Copper River, you know, and this is the Nusiac, you know, um, and we take restrictions necessary and we craft fisheries.

We experiment with how we can open, use time and area openers to, to catch the target species that has yield and protect the species that are underperforming, like, like king salmon. Um, I think we did a good job with that 2025. You know, we, we, we, we probably could have caught more sockeye, but we, we restricted sockeye harvest and we moved them in time and area to places where kings weren't to try to meet our king salmon goals. So I would get reluctant into trying to say we're going to, we're going to forego yield all the time for one single species. And then when we have a high yield, we're kind of like where we are in the Nusciac right now.

We're going to set our a king salmon management strategy based on when we wanted to start harvesting sockeye rather than trying to have a strategy built around run timing or time and area where we're trying to move king salmon into that river. So, but we do this all across the state. Mr. Wood. Okay, I'm trying to put together in my mind this— Commissioner brought up this Susitna River sockeye salmon stock concern, which I have lived through. And, um, the Susitna was unique too because it wasn't primarily lake spawners of sockeye.

They're river spawners, so the return was, was, is lower than, say, on the Kenai or Kasilof because of the habitat. I feel like this habitat in, uh, Chignik is unique as well, having two different lakes and having different run timings of a species. It took forever to delist the Susitna sockeye. It has only happened in the last like 3 years. And even still, we were like, we're going to manage this wicked carefully, you know, like, and so we've never gotten increased openers or extra days or anything.

We still just fish 2 days a week, maybe 12 hours, but that's it. So I appreciate the conservativeness of it all. I'm just one looking at this going, what could go wrong if you do it versus if you don't do it? And it took so long to unwind from the Susitna thing. Like, what went wrong?

Nothing, because it took a little extra time and it's doing well and it's rebounding well. And so I'm inclined to be cautious and be careful with this unique ecosystem in this fishery. And not follow and not jump to delisting. Sorry. Question, Mr. Godfrey.

Two comments. Number one, Board Member Wood, if I understand what you said correctly, you essentially are saying erring on the side of caution has far less potential downside than acting, you know, immediately now. Is that correct? Okay. That's a pretty compelling way to frame it.

I'm kind of moved by that. I kind of have been listening to the discussion of the board members and the staff and was waiting to ask a question because I thought it might get answered just listening. It didn't. And I want to go back to what Board Member Irwin said at the beginning of her comments. Can you clarify for me when you say the best available data, but it's it's not here now, but it's available, because I may have missed that earlier and I need to be informed.

Member Allen. Thanks, Member Godfrey. So as I understand it, there is GSI data for 2022, 2024, and 2025 that the department or independent organization has. However, it's not available to us board members at this time for review and consideration for these stocks of concern designation, if I understand it correctly. Thank you.

Can I ask, um, the commissioner staff on that? If it's available to the department, why isn't it available to the board?

Through the chair, uh, Member Gottfried, uh, And we have samples from 23 that were run. 22 Were not run because of funding. 24 Is— we didn't have room because the lab is running so many that it was being run by our sister lab over at the Akbay Labs in Juneau. And unfortunately, we didn't get the data prior to people leaving the building. So we don't have the data.

It's not available to us, to the department. So to be clear—. Oh, I don't want to cut you off. So, and 25 samples have just come in. They are being put into the— into the— we've already moved things around in our schedule in order to get information out on some other fisheries that are coming before the board this cycle.

And So we're trying to see if we can get those in and have them analyzed by our own lab so that we'll have that information. So that's a long list. 22, There's no information available. 23, There's information available and it's been presented. 24, There's— data are— they exist, but they're not available to the department.

And 25, We don't have them yet. So would it be accurate for me to say the raw data is there, but the actual available data has not been synthesized and distilled, so the conclusions are not available to us because the raw data is there, but it hasn't been distilled down? It—. Slight correction. It does exist.

It is not available to the department because It is in the computers at the NOAA lab in Juneau.

Okay. That was helpful. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay.

We're going to wrap this up here soon, Commissioner. I think we've been a victim of our own success in genetics. You know, we kind of— we kind of developed genetic technology. We got the best technology and we developed that kind of— now nationwide it's a standard for how we've done it. And now the demands in our genetic lab is outpacing the ability for us to meet all the needs.

You know, we're just— we're struggling with trying to keep up with all these different things and prioritize them. So it's—. But—. And thank you for those comments, Commissioner, because I get it, you know, and that's kind of why I just feel like it's a little bit premature. I would have a much higher degree level of comfortability with delisting if we had that had that information.

And certainly no disrespect to the department, I hear it from staff often enough, the phrase that models are sometimes useful, always wrong. And I kind of keep hearing that in my mind. And when we have the ability to sort of ground truth those models with available genetic data, why wouldn't we do that? Particularly if the stakeholders have have presented that to the department to work with. And it seems to me that the precedent would be pretty terrible and certainly disenfranchising for people that are trying to augment the science by which their fisheries are managed, especially in this time of, you know, fiscal cutbacks and lack of funding to do this work, for us to know that it exists and ignore it.

I struggle with that. And so I'm going to end there and I will not be supportive of delisting it. So any other discussion?

Seeing none, the question has been called and there is an objection to the concurrence. And if you would just sort us out on the actual motion just so that we're all square on what we're voting for. Yeah, Madam Chair, the motion was to remove or to delist Chignik Early Run Sockeye as a stock of concern. So a yes vote would be to delist, a no vote would be to keep it as a stock of concern. Is that clear?

Everybody understand? Yes. Okay. I don't believe we need to do E&O at this time, but let's go ahead. Is there— I don't think we need to do E&O.

Let's go ahead and call the question. Okay, sorry, call the roll. Roll, uh, on the motion to delist. Carpenter? Yes.

Irwin? No. Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandork?

No. Wood? No. Svenson? No.

Chamberlain? No. Uh, that motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against, Madam Chair.

All right, that brings us to the Bristol Bay, um, Stock of Concern Management Plan. I don't think there's anything to do on that. I would just— Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Specific to Bristol Bay and the action plan that the department brought forward to the board, I move that the department would concur with the department's recommendation to leave the stock with concern designation as it currently stands.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion? I would just sort of add in here just for the public, considering that we did get— I think it's RC 15— that again reiterating that the board is not taking or making changes to any of the escapement goal recommendations that would come through an OEG, either through a board-generated proposal or another vehicle, that it would be considered in cycle.

So this is only to basically maintain the status quo on the stock of concern designations for the Bristol Bay Management Area. All right. Hearing no other discussion.

Question. Question's been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

On the motion to concur with the department's stock of concern Stock of concern recommendation for Bristol Bay.

Mr. Wood, I apologize. This is for the entire Bristol Bay stock of concern recommendation, including the Nushikak. That's correct. Yeah, there's only one stock of concern. All right, to delist it?

To—. No, to maintain or to accept the department's recommendations is essentially maintaining status quo. Okay, copy. Thank you for clarifying. You got it.

Mr. Nelson. Yes. So again, to clarify, a yes vote maintains the stock of concern listing for Nuu-chah-gaht King Salmon as, as it is. Yeah.

Uh, we're all a little rusty. Svenson. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Carlson-Vandort.

Yes. Erwin? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chairman.

That brings the Stock of Concern Memorandum from the Department for the Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim. Mr. Carpenter?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the board adopt the recommendation from the department to change the stock of concern to a stock of management concern for the Yukon River king salmon.

Second. You want me to do it? Do you want to do them separately? We can. That's fine.

Um, I'll, I'll go ahead and include that if the second concurs. Um, specific to the Yukon River fall chum salmon, I'll also recommend I recommend that the board adopt the department's recommendation to designate Yukon River Fall Chum Salmon as a stock of management concern. I concur.

Second. Second. Concur. Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. I just want to get clear.

So essentially the motion is to concur with all of the AYK stock of concern recommendations from the department. Okay. Thank you. That's correct. Is there an objection?

All right, seeing no objection, Mr. Nelson, please call the roll.

Okay, I'll request unanimous consent.

Who did? Jer—. Jer—. He didn't make the motion, though. He didn't.

He was—. You weren't the second Okay, I could second. Keep it clean. Okay, go ahead. It'll take 1 minute.

On the motion to concur with the stock of concern recommendations for the AYK region. Wood? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Irwin? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svensson? Yes.

Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you very much. I think that concludes the stock of concern work. Mr. Commissioner, I just want to thank the board for this discussion.

I think this is a very useful discussion, very informative, and gets us all thinking. Thank you very much. Thank you to you and your staff. I thought the— how we walked through and the presentations and the reports were given to us was particularly good. So thank you so much.

Let's take about a 10-minute break. We're going to come back. We're going to do the NPFMC update with Miss Bush. And then since we have a shutdown, we have no FSB update for the board, and I think we'll probably pause after that, so, for the day. So let's go ahead and take a 10-minute break.

We'll come back on the record at 3:40 with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council update. Thank you.

All right, we are back on the record. The time is 3:46, and we are going to hear from, um, Miss Carla Bush giving us the NPFMC update. Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Karl Bush.

I am the Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager. I work under the Commercial Fisheries Division and I'm stationed in Juneau. This report reflects actions taken by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council since the last work session, and it covers actions currently under development as well as final actions that the council has taken this past year. More information can be referenced from Council documents, and those are available at the council's website at npfmc.org. Beginning with Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab, the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king and tanner crab establishes a cooperative state and federal management regime for the major crab fisheries, and this plan delegates most management measures to the state with federal oversight.

Most of the Bering Sea Aleutian Island crab fisheries are managed under the Crab Rational Regionalization Program, which is a catch share program designed to benefit harvesters, processors, and coastal communities through allocations of harvesting and processing privileges and regional delivery requirements. In October this year, the council established annual harvest specifications for Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea tanner crab, and Bering Sea snow crab, and quadrennial— quadrennial, excuse me— specifications for Pribilof Islands red king crab and blue king crab. And there's a table there on the first page that shows those, those harvest specifications. The state is responsible for setting the total allowable catch, or the TAC, for the open fisheries so that all removals remain below the acceptable biological catch, or ABC. Just some brief updates for the major stocks, starting with Bristol Bay red king crab.

Currently, the estimated mature male and mature female abundance remain near historic lows, though have shown some slight positive trends since 2021. Recruitment for the Bristol Bay stock has been low for the last 15 years. The 2025 estimated mature female abundance and effective spawning biomass were both above the thresholds in the state harvest strategy, and the department announced a total allowable catch of 2.68 million pounds for the 2025-26 season, which was a 16% increase from last season. Bering Sea snow crab. Following the collapse of the snow crab stock in 2020 due to the 2019 marine heat wave in the North Pacific, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that the stock was in an overfished state and implemented the council's rebuilding plan in August 2023.

Recovery of the snow crab stock continues, and high abundances of small size classes were encountered on this— on the last year's survey. After a 2-year closure, the fishery opened in 2024-25 with a tag of 4.72 million pounds. Based on result— based on the results from this year's survey, the estimated spawning biomass is above the threshold in the state harvest strategy, and on October 4th, the department announced a base snow crab tack of 8.3 million pounds and an additional 1.0 million pounds to, to address the unprecedented high abundance of hybrid Tanner crab found in the 2025 survey. So the total snow crab tack this season is 9.3 million pounds, which is a 97% increase from last season. Bering Sea Tanner crab.

Tanner crab are managed with separate tax east and west of 166 degrees west longitude. Both the eastern and western areas were open last season, and the department announced a tag of 1.13 million pounds in the eastern area and 10.12 million pounds in the western area for this season. The combined tag of 11.25 million pounds is a 90— a 79% increase from last season.

Moving on to Gulf of Alaska Tanner crab protections. In April of this year, the council reviewed an expanded discussion paper with additional information on potential Tanner crab protections that would be in place during the groundfish fisheries off the east side of Kodiak Island in statistical areas 525.702 and 525.630. And there's a map on page 3 of the report. These areas overlap the Barnabas Gully, which is an area of high productivity for many species and has consistently contained a high proportion of the Tanner crab abundance in the Kodiak District. After receiving a substantial amount of public comment from potentially affected crab and groundfish fishery participants, the council initiated, initiated an analysis to establish a new closure area and evaluate all existing federal crab protection closure areas around Kodiak Island for modification or removal.

The proposed alternatives for a new closure include closing all or portions of Statistical Area 525.702, which has the highest abundance of Tanner crab, and options for the closure to be either year-round or seasonal to all or some groundfish fishing gears when Tanner crab are molting and mating and when they're most vulnerable to interactions with fishing gear. Additionally, the council intends to establish criteria and a timeline to review the effectiveness of any new closures implemented by this action. The council also outlined its intent to review the objectives of each of the existing federal closure areas around Kodiak Island that establish groundfish fishing restrictions to protect king and Tanner crab and develop criteria to evaluate and consider options for either modifications or removal of those areas. Many of the existing closure areas were implemented over 30 years ago and have not been evaluated to determine if they are meeting their objectives. Both Tanner crab fisheries and groundfish fisheries are important to Kodiak, and the council intends to consider management actions that will conserve and protect Tanner crab while minimizing negative impacts to groundfish fisheries in the Central Gulf of Alaska.

Pelagic trawl gear. In June of this year, the council took two separate actions related to pelagic trawl gear. In its first action, the council recommended a preferred alternative, preferred alternative to update the federal definition of pelagic trawl gear. The trawl gear— the pelagic trawl gear definition has remained unchanged since 1993 and did not reflect modern pelagic trawl gear configurations that were developed by the fleet in response to conservation and management objectives. These include the use of floats and salmon bycatch excluders and metallic components associated with instruments to monitor the net performance.

The council's preferred alternative allows the continued use and innovation of bycatch excluder devices and instrumentation and removes some outdated regulations. The council's second action on pelagic trawl gear innovation included a request for the Bering Sea Pollock Fleet to develop discrete area closures to protect Bristol Bay red king crab starting with the 2026 pollock A season. The council anticipates the pollock fleet will use available survey and fishery information to identify and avoid fishing in areas where crab are likely to occur while maintaining the highest priority on Chinook salmon avoidance. Federal regulations allow pelagic trawl fishing in some areas that are closed to non-pelagic pelagic trawl gear, and research is currently underway to better understand how pelagic trawl gear interacts with the seafloor. The peer-reviewed Fishing Effects Model estimates the impact of pelagic trawl gear on the seafloor and is used by the Council to assess the effects of fishing on essential fish habitats, or EFH.

Results from the most recent EFH 5-year review concluded that habitat disturbance within core EFH areas for the managed crab and groundfish species is not affecting any stock in ways that are more than minimal or temporary. The cumulative effects of fishing are estimated to impact less than 5% of the total EFH in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska across all gear types. However, uncertainty exists regarding the impacts of unobserved crab mortality due to Garrett interactions and research on this issue has been limited. In June next year, the council is scheduled to receive, to receive several updates to help inform potential trawl gear innovation and development of a performance standard, performance standard related to seafloor contact. The council will receive an update on the Pollack Industries Gear Innovation Initiative, which is currently underway and expected to result in a better understanding of pelagic trawl gear interactions with benthic habitat, unobserved mortality on crab, and enforceability of bottom interactions— of bottom contact characteristics of pelagic trawl gear.

Results of the Gear Innovation Initiative will be used to update seafloor contact estimates that are inputs to the Fishing Effects Model. The Council will also receive updates of ongoing Bering Sea crab research, including winter surveys and research on modifications to pelagic trawl foot rope, and intends to develop options to revise the performance standard for pelagic trawl gear based on information presented in June next year.

Salmon bycatch. The Council has taken several actions to minimize Chinook and chum salmon bycatch fish and federal groundfish fisheries. Chinook salmon bycatch is limited by hard caps in both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, and reaching a salmon bycatch limit closes the fishery that is subject to the limit. Additionally, federal regulations require the Bering Sea pollock fishery to operate under avoidance plans for Chinook and chum salmon that provide incentives to avoid salmon at all times and to help minimize salmon bycatch. Full retention of all salmon bycatch on pollock vessels is required to ensure bycatch accounting is accurate and to enable genetic sampling.

Genetic samples are taken from Chinook salmon caught as bycatch in both the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl fisheries to estimate the proportion of bycatch from individual salmon stock groups. Chum salmon— chum salmon samples are primarily taken in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Because very little chum salmon bycatch occurs in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries. The council receives annual genetic reports from bycatch samples taken in the groundfish fisheries the previous year. The council also receives annual, annual reports from Bering Sea Pollock Fishery Cooperatives on fleet performance under the salmon avoidance plans.

When considering the impact of bycatch on specific salmon stocks, it is important to note that bycatch is one of several factors affecting the number of adults returning to Alaska River systems. The number of Chinook or chum salmon caught as bycatch is larger than the number of adults that would have returned to Alaska Rivers because the bycatch is primarily composed of immature fish, which are subject to predation and other types, types of natural mortality before maturing and returning to freshwater systems. Both Chinook and chum salmon salmon from a given brood year mature and return to the rivers at multiple ages. Chinook salmon taken as bycatch are predominantly age 3 or 4 fish and range in age from 3 to 7 years. Bycatch, bycatch chum salmon range in age from 2 to 7 years and are predominantly ages 3 to 5 years.

Specific to chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, nearly all chum salmon bycatch occurs during the pollock bee season, which runs from June through October. In 2024, an estimated 35,130 chum salmon were caught as bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, as shown in the figure on page 5, which was much lower than the 10-year average bycatch of nearly 300,000 fish. Based on stock composition estimates from 2014 through 2024, approximately 17% of the chum salmon bycatch originates from western Alaska and the Yukon River. 30% Is from stock groups in southwest Alaska and the Eastern Gulf and the Pacific Northwest. And about 53% of the chum salmon bycatch is composed of Asian stocks, primarily from Russia and Japan.

Through September 25th this year, a total of 135,476 chum salmon have been caught in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The council is currently considering additional management measures to minimize Western Alaska chum bycatch while maintaining the priority of the current Chinook salmon bycatch avoidance objectives balanced with achieving optimum yield in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. In February of this year, the council reviewed a second preliminary analysis of proposed management alternatives to minimize chum salmon bycatch, particularly the bycatch of chum salmon originating from Western Alaska.

Um, and the council is focused on management actions to minimize the Western Alaska chum salmon bycatch because of the recent and ongoing declines in abundance, which have reduced or eliminated in-river harvest opportunities and resulted in broader negative impacts to communities and residents across Western and Interior Alaska that rely on chum salmon for cultural, nutritional, economic, and spiritual well-being. The management measures being considered by the council all aim to reduce Western Alaska chum salmon bycatch and include limits or caps on the number of chum salmon that may be caught in the pollock fishery and would close all or a part of the Bering Sea to pollock fishing once a cap is reached. In response to recommendations from the council's advisory panel and public testimony, the council's February 2025 action was primarily focused on revisions to a corridor area concept that would close areas to pollock fishing north of the Alaska Peninsula, where western Alaska chum salmon bycatch encounter rates have been the highest. If a chum— if a chum salmon cap in that corridor area is reached, reducing all chum salmon bycatch inside the corridor area is expected to reduce western Alaska chum salmon bycatch across the entire B season. Last month, on September 12th, the National Marine Fisheries Service published a draft environmental impact statement, or draft EIS, and a regulatory impact review analysis for public comment.

The published document was revised by analytical staff based on the input and recommendations from the council's February meeting. There are two opportunities to provide public comment on the proposed alternatives prior to the council taking final action in February next year. First of all, written public comments can be, can be provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the draft EIS and proposed alternatives. The public comment period will close on January 5th. The National Marine Fisheries Service is required to prepare written responses to the public comments it receives, and the agency staff will provide a comment summary, summary report for the council at its February meeting.

And then both written and oral public comments can, can be provided directly to the Council at its February 2026 meeting. Comment letters may be submitted directly to the Council on the e-agenda page once that's available in December this year. The comment period will be open until January 30th. Oral public comment can be provided to the Council during the February meeting by calling in or in person. And that 2026 meeting will be held February 2nd to the 11th here in Anchorage.

There's some information there on Chinook salmon bycatch in both the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. I'll just note that this is largely a repeat of last year's information. We— the council has not yet received information on the 2024 bycatch, and that's delayed due to the federal shutdown. So for— save some time here, I'm going to skip ahead to, to the last part of the report. I have updated the graphs on page 5 and 6 showing— or I'm sorry, the graphs on page 7 and 8 showing Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery and the Gulf of Alaska pollock fishery.

Those genetic stock composition estimates are just through 2023. 2023, Because again, the 2024 results have been delayed due to the shutdown.

The final two issues I'll speak on— the first is herring bycatch. Management measures for herring bycatch in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl fisheries have remained static since first implemented, since first implemented in 1991. The bycatch limit is set at 1% of the mature biomass Pacific herring in the Eastern Bering Sea, and attainment of a fishery's herring bycatch apportionment triggers closure of the herring savings areas to that fishery. The herring savings areas are based on herring migration data from the 1980s and may no, may no longer reflect the current seasonal distribution of herring. In recent years, pollock fishery participants have encountered herring at different rates, times, and locations than historically occurred.

And these changes have constrained the fleet's ability to meet requirements to minimize salmon bycatch in the pollock fisheries. In October this year, the council initiated an action to consider increasing the herring bycatch limit to provide additional flexibility for the pollock fleet to adapt to changing conditions and ensure that salmon bycatch avoidance efforts are effective. The options to increase the bycatch limit to 2 or 3% of the mature biomass of herring is intended to maintain herring conservation objectives and its contribution to the pelagic forage fish complex, while not adversely affecting subsistence and commercial herring fishing opportunities.

Finally, for Norton Sound red king crab, over the past year and a half, the council has received public testimony from participants in the Norton Sound red king crab fishery urging the council to consider additional management tools to address overcapitalization in the, in the summer open access fishery. High catch rates and increased participation by larger vessels in recent years have resulted in shorter seasons, and small operators are finding it difficult to remain competitive. In October, the Council requested a discussion paper with information on historical and current participation in the fishery to facilitate consideration of an action to reduce the number of federal license limitation program permits that are available for the fishery. Madam Chair, that concludes my report. Okay.

I have just a couple of questions. First, Commissioner, and then we'll go to Greg. Yeah, I just want to say that the council's been busy this last couple of years in trying to deal with issues that are of interest to the board. I'll highlight a couple of them. One is chum salmon bycatch.

I know Chum salmon bycatch of AYK chum salmon was a big issue. The council has taken that up. They have now, in February, they're going to be taking some action. We found out through genetic sampling and through genetic work that most of the chum salmon of AYK origin are caught during the B season, and they're caught basically in the CDQ fishery in the Unimak District. We're doing a very similar approach like we did in REM, which is set some targets down there that if if you— people want to fish there because it's cheaper to fish there, but if they exceed those targets, time and area is going to be taken out of their fishery and they have to move out.

So I think we have a good approach. It seems to be getting through the council process, but I want to assure the board that the council is taking consideration of what the state of Alaska views as a primary issue, which is sometime bycatch, and they're taking it seriously and going to take action in February. The second one is the— is the issue regarding Tanner tanner crab bycatch in the trawl fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. We put a measure in place to look at that, and we're closing areas of the Bering Sea— I mean, the Gulf of Alaska that are important for tanner crab. The third one is the bottom contact.

There's some issue of mine that's critical. I don't always agree with the National Marine Fisheries Service on a lot of issues, but this is one where we're very united on the front. We're trying to work with the industry to make sure that the trawl fishery is minimizing its bottom contact and bottom disturbance in both the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. And then the final one is this concept that we're dealing with now with the herring bycatch area. We certainly don't want pollock to go unharvested that's only harvested by the Russian fleet, which we know from experience results in higher levels of bycatch than on the U.S. side.

So we're trying to take a good, measured look at how we can restrict some of those, the herring savings area, when in fact we're not harvesting those herring in our state fisheries and we're still allowing those pollock fisheries to be economically viable moving forward. So issues of interest to the board, the council is addressed directly, addressing and, and taking those things seriously and going to take action on them in the next year. Thank you. Mr. Swenson, I just have one quick question. How—.

What's the percentage— do all the trawl vessels have observers on them now? Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, um, yes, they're all 100% monitored. Not necessarily with human observers. We have, um, electronic monitoring 100% on all of the pollock trawl vessels, and that's to monitor for compliance with no discards. So they make sure that nothing's being discarded off these vessels.

And then in the Bering Sea, 100% of those trips are sampled shoreside. And in the Gulf, 100% of the trips are sampled for salmon bycatch, and then about 30% are sampled for biological samples of the pollock themselves. But it's 100% in the Bering Sea, 100% for salmon in the Gulf, and then 30% for sampling shoreside samples of of the pollock catch in the Gulf. Okay. Thank you.

That's good news. A couple of quick questions. Number one, which, which fisheries that the council considers— does the state have delegated authority for? Let's talk about crab primarily. But yeah, Madam Chair, the state has delegated authority for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab fisheries.

The council sets the overfishing limit and the acceptable biological catch, or ABC, and then the state sets the total allowable catch and manages those in season. The state has delegated management for the statewide scallop fisheries. And then as far as groundfish fisheries are concerned, in the Gulf we have delegated management of demersal shelf rockfish, so primarily yelloweye and DSR in, in Southeast. And then we have management authority of anything not in a federal management plan. So the big ones would be Tanner in the Gulf, uh, black rockfish, and lingcod.

Um, quick question, what is a hybrid? We also have sport fishery delegations because the federal delegations don't cover the federal waters, right? Thank you. Um, what is a hybrid Tanner crab? Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

Um, in the Bering Sea, snow crab, which is an opilio bare— or Opilio Tanner crab and Bairdi. They— where they overlap, they, they can— and they can and do interbreed. So it's a hybrid of a Bairdi and an Opilio. Another quick question for you is, um, to— you, you mentioned in your report the avoidance plans for Chinook, and are those demonstrating efficacy? I mean, are we showing those, those avoidance plans are actually avoiding?

Through the chair, Madam Chair. Yes, there are specific requirements that those incentive plans must include, such as basically how their rolling hotspot program works to move the fleet off of areas of high bycatch. And they do update those rolling hotspots weekly. And in some cases biweekly. So yeah, the fleet works very actively to move off of any areas where they are encountering high rates of bycatch.

And this is updated throughout the whole season to keep the fleet off of areas where there are higher concentrations of either chum or Chinook. Thank you. And I was looking at the graph that you you have on page 7, which is obviously illustrative, and the graph notes that there's, you know, a significant reduction of Chinook bycatch in this— in the Pollock fishery in the last 4 or 5 years. But I'm just kind of curious, what is the composition of that bycatch in the last few years? Let's say, you know, '23 to '25 or '21 to '25.

It's not, you know, obviously illustrated here, but if that's something that you could— I'm curious about that— get to the board at some point, that would be appreciated. I don't know if, Commissioner, if you can expand on that. I can start if you want. Yeah. So it looked like he was reaching for the mic.

Yeah. Madam Chair, that pie graph there does show for the entire time series of genetic information, 2011 to to 2023. Those are the proportions. We don't yet have the results for 2024. And so I can look up what those proportions were from '21, '22, '23, if that's something you're interested in.

What I've shown there in that pie chart is across the whole time series, but I can, I can provide something more consistent. And I imagine that 2007 or whatever year that is, '06, has a, you know, pretty big play on that, but I'm just kind of curious. And then my last question is for either you or the Commissioner, is related to the graph on page 8, and that is, does the Gulf of Alaska salmon, Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery have any treaty implications? Is that something that's considered in treaty negotiations?

Not right now. Cape Suckling is the line, but the more this gets highlighted, the more it gets of interest to our, our treaty partners in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. Okay. Just curious. And then my last question to you, Carla, is we are in the middle of a federal shutdown, and I'm just kind of curious what the implications of that may or may not be on the work that is ongoing at the council level currently.

And then will it have any effect on what's coming down the pike for this year and and just kind of what, what are the impacts that you are or that the council is anticipating with respect to the shutdown? Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. The— so I would say in, in the near term, it's the groundfish harvest specifications. Those are the final specifications are established at the December meeting. Typically in a few weeks there would be a groundfish planning meeting and updated updated stock assessments.

That's not going to happen this year. We do not— we will not receive any updated stock assessments because of the federal shutdown. What the council will have and the Council Science and Statistical Committee, which is the body that establishes those OFLs and the maximum EBCs, they will have the projections from last year as well as some updated survey information. And the council is still considering what that's going to mean in December. And it will all depend on how long this shutdown lasts.

But yeah, not, not having our proposed specifications for from October in the process yet. Those are currently in line for when the federal government goes back to work. The ones that are currently in place will expire in March. So it's very important to have something in place before March. And yeah, it's sort of a wait and see for the next couple of weeks.

I imagine that if there's nothing in place by March, there won't be fisheries prosecuted, or has there been a determination made on that yet? If there's nothing in place, then I mean, that would be the presumption. But I think we're all hoping that the shutdown won't last that long. And amen. Something will be in place.

And just to answer your earlier question about Chinook in the Gulf, that 25,000, which is the bycatch limit in the Gulf, that level I could say is at least informed by some past ESA consultations that happened on lower-48 stocks. I think at that time it was 30,000 where it was sort of the cap on, on any removals from the federal groundfish fisheries. And the council set that 25,000 limit less than that just to ensure that there weren't— there wouldn't be any ESA concerns based on those former consultations. Thank you, Mr. Wood. And then Mr. Erwin.

Yeah, thank you. I'm looking at the graph on page 5 for chum salmon bycatch. And noticing that around 2011 or '12, it started to go up. And then on page 7, the 2011 to '12, the Chinook started going down. Is there any reason that— are you—.

Is—. Are the fisheries being pushed off of Chinook and hitting chum spots? Is that what's happening there? Or through the chair, Mr. Wood. So 2011 is when the Chinook limits were put in place in the Gulf, which is why the, the bycatch dotted line of the cap starts in 2011.

That, that's when the Chinook ones were first implemented. And there is sort of a— there is a relation between Chinook and chum salmon bycatch. Most of the Chinook salmon bycatch happens early in the A season. So January, February, and then picks up again towards the end of the bee season in September, October. Chum bycatch is highest early in the bay— in the bee season.

So if, if the pollock fleet isn't catching early in the bee season, isn't catching pollock, and pushed later into the bee season, then their Chinook rates go up. It is a balance of trying to catch your pollock early enough in the bee season so you don't get to those higher Chinook rates later in the season, but also trying to avoid chum, which is a problem early in the bee season. So there is— if they don't catch all their pollock early enough in the bee season, they are pushed later when Chinook rates start to go up. And so if they are moving around to avoid chum early in the bee season, that can push them to fishing later. So with the council action that's coming up in February, we are very focused on the western, you know, trying to avoid western Alaska chum salmon because, you know, that's where the concern is.

We don't want to push the pollock fishery off of good pollock fishing where they may be interacting with Asian chum because, you know, we want them to avoid western Alaska chum. Not necessarily all chum, if that makes sense. Thank you. And then when you're trying to stay away, are you, are you trying to stay away like in a latitude-longitude differential, or are you trying to stay away depth in the water column? Like, um, through the chair, Mr. Wood, it's, it's based on the genetic sampling that's been done.

We have identified you know, the areas north of the Alaska Peninsula tend to have the higher rates of Western Alaskan. So that's why this corridor concept is focused on, on limiting the amount of chum bycatch that comes out of those areas. If they're fishing further north, north of the, of the Pribilofs and other areas, the rates of Western Alaska chum salmon tend to be lower in those areas. And the CP fleets and the mothership pollock fleets can, can operate in those areas. It's harder for the inshore sector that delivers to the shore-based processors in Dutch Harbor and Akutan.

They, they, they have a limit on how far away from the peninsula they can go. So they are trying to avoid higher concentrations of chum salmon in those areas and have been updating their rolling hotspots more frequently to to make sure that they can avoid those western Alaska chum salmon. Commissioner, then Mr. Owen. Yeah, I think it's all of the above. Yeah, it's a dynamic system.

So we're trying to manage bycatch for different species in different times, you know, different times by months and days going in, by X, Y, and Z coordinates in the water column. And I think we learned a very valuable lesson this year. That's why we started the herring one is we didn't have any stock conservation concerns for herring, but we have a geography that has a cap on it. And we didn't even take the harvest out that cap was supposed to be protective, but because we reached the cap, we lost all that water. We pushed the pollock fleet out of that water, and we pushed them into waters that basically have chum salmon in them now.

But you see that little slight peak up there, which is— so you're trying to manage a geography on multiple species that have prohibited species and caps on them in a very dynamic approach that can be very static in certain areas. So it's very difficult. I checked out in fourth— four-dimensional math. That's where I just like— bye.

Anyway, uh, Mr. Owen. Thank you, Carla. Um, it's a follow-up question similar to Member Van Dort's. Uh, what's the confidence in the council that they'll be able to hold that special February meeting. Is there any chance that that's going to have to be pushed or be fully remote or anything?

Or is it unknown at this time per government shutdown? Thank you. Through the chair, Mrs. Irwin, it's certain. I don't anticipate the federal shutdown impacting that. The draft EIS has already been published, so that document is already available for review.

It may impact the summary of comments they receive on that, depending on how long the shutdown lasts. But the comment period is open for a while longer. So, yeah. Okay. Carla, quickly, please.

One quick question. What was the— what's the bycatch for the Chinook in the Bering Sea?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. Through the chair, I did skip over that part because the updated information on the genetics isn't available. But on— let's see, I think on page 6 of the report, in 2024, it was just over 8,000 Chinook salmon, and through late September this year, it's at 17,000.

Going once, going twice. Thank you for your report, appreciate you. All right, the time is 4:22. I think we're going to break here, um, today, and so we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30 beginning with some of our, um, sort of additional administrative work related to non-responsive, scheduling meetings for the '27-'28 cycle, call proposals and then we'll get into the agenda change requests and miscellaneous business. So 8:30 AM, we'll see you all back here then.

Have a nice evening.