2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (2/7/25)

They see fit. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Oh.

Hi. Matt Donahoe. I guess I'm acting executive director for ATA. Amy had to go home. She's pretty sick.

There is an indirect connection— oh, there is an indirect connection between the treaty and hatcheries. The hatcheries are started to mitigate the damage done, potential damage done to the commercial fisheries from the Pacific Salmon Treaty. And since the instigation of the hatchery programs, the fishermen-funded hatchery programs, I and every other troller have been contributing 3% of our gross to the hatchery program. And trollers, because of restrictions on king salmon, particularly during stocks of concern, have lost opportunity on king salmon in much of Southeast. And the crawfish project was, it was viewed by trollers as an opportunity to get their share of the production of, of Insulaw hatchery fish.

And the first couple years it was really successful. It, it, we, the trollers were way behind on their allocation of, of value from, from the hatcheries. It's really important to the troll fleet, especially now when we've been cut back by so many king salmon. I would like to point out one other thing. I don't have the action plan before me, but if you look at the table of the years of the returns, you'll see that there are years like, I think, like in the '80s where there was no fishery in Crawfish.

In one year, there would be 30,000, 33,000 chum returning to that system in West Crawfish, and then the next year, 500 fish.

That happened 2 or 3 times. The numbers aren't all 33. One year was 30,000 fish, and then the next year 500, 600 fish. It wasn't because of fishing or hatchery fish. It's very irregular.

There is no pattern in the return of that system in West Crawfish. And in my non-professional opinion, I don't see the connection between the crawfish fishery and, and, and, and what happens on that stream in West Crawfish. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Next.

Hi, I'm Jackie Foss. I'm a troller and I'm also an NCR board member. I want to talk about two things, like the previous commenter, the economic importance of a troll-specific hatchery operation. Is pretty significant. So trollers have contributed significantly to the hatchery program, and crawfish was set up specifically for the benefit of trollers.

So I would like you all to think about how we took it on the chin for king salmon, and to reduce hatchery operation with a number before that NCRRA has had an opportunity to work with the department could be detrimental to trollers. The second thing is I really want to applaud the way that NCRA has put its money where the mouth is by funding science and monitoring to make sure that the good surveys happen for hatchery strays. I think that given the opportunity to work with the department is very critical, and I see the seriousness and the people who are doing that work. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Members of the board, Tom Miners, the Southeast Alaska Salmon Association. I just wanted to mention that when we talk about some of those northern streams in the index streams in the subregion, that we— our manager is keeping a close eye on those, and he often keeps some of our pink salmon areas that are nearby closed. And so in general, We have a pretty low harvest impact on all these stocks and that our managers are keeping a really good eye on them. And yeah, when it comes to West Crawfish, we're also not really harvesting those fish. We're making sure that we're not really harvesting the wild stocks because we're making sure that they pass through to their different run timing before we do any cost recovery operations or any other stuff.

So we're making sure they've had their time to make it into the streams. Just figured I'd mention that. Cool. Thank you. Well, it doesn't look like there's any more comments on that.

Oh, please get up and get in line if you would. Okay. Thanks. Sure. Thank you, Chair Wood.

Taylor Scott, for the record, with NCRA. And I would just like to reiterate and share with the board that we are working with the department to continue the carcass survey evaluation that we've done for the last 2 years to determine what is the proportion of hatchery fish, hatchery spawners in the index stream. So we're going to, we're going to continue that work to get a handle on what proportion of fish are in there and temporally when are they arriving. So thank you.

Steve Reifenstiel. Thank you. I would add to that, that work in 2023 and '24.

NCRRA is actually estimated the number of wild versus hatchery fish in that index stream. And that work could continue. We've talked to the department about this on the sampling methodology, which is a valid way to determine the number of wild fish there. And that work will likely continue as this evolves. I would like to point out in the RC-128 You know, the fundamental argument about the cause and effect is, is really important to understand that the statistical analysis that we did comparing the West Chitaga streams with crawfish and that decline has no significant bearing on when the enhancement program came in.

So the decline started before the program. And it has continued after all those streams from West Chichagouaf down to Whale Bay. The last thing I'd say is that when we developed this program, it had very much to do with allocation. It is a very difficult thing to get the trawlers up into their range that was agreed upon back in 1994. And this program was seen as a way to do that.

And it has been effective. They're not still in their range, but they have at times harvested 300,000, 400,000 fish from the crawfish program. Thank you.

Chair Wood, thank you. Chris Gutermichler, member of the RPT. You know, I just support working through this process in the RPT. Under that direction. You know, I think sometimes from outside this room there's a perception that commercial fishermen just want to kill all the fish, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Our livelihoods are dependent on these fisheries, the longevity and sustainability of these fisheries. I've asked the chair of the RPT, just, I want to see more studies in the RPT. I want to see more, I want to educate ourselves more on environmental conditions that are changing and how they're affecting these fish. So thank you. Great.

Thank you. All right. We'll move on to the next. Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon stock status and action plan 2025. Department.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Bo Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Commercial Fisheries here in Ketchikan. Uh, the Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon stock status and action plan in its entirety can be found in RC 6, and a summary or oral report highlighting the action items was presented in RC tab 33. 3 Action items were presented for the commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries, and to briefly summarize those action items, starting with action item 1, to reduce commercial harvest.

The 3 commercial fishery options are: Option A, nor— no formal action plan. Option B, resurrect the original 2003 action plan. And Option C, take the largest area closures from Option B, or the 2003 AP, and implement those initially in Stat Week 29 with an additional expansion in Stat Week 31. For Action Item 2, no changes are recommended to the subsistence fishery. And then for action item 3, 2 options were presented in the sport fishery, with option A being status quo or no change, and option B is to use EO authority to close sport fishing for sockeye salmon at Hugh Smith Lake and the saltwater area in the Sockeye Creek estuary.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Anyone like to comment on this?

If anybody else wants to.

Comment. Get in line.

Good morning. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Phil Doherty, Executive Director of the Southeast Sanders Association. And our preferred options on U. smith's sockeyes would be Action Plan 1, Option A. That gives the department, again, the most flexibility in determining in-season management strategies.

And that's— we are very much in favor of in-season management strategies to give to the, to the area managers. Option B has also been used since 2003. Those management plans tie in management options to the number of fish going through the weir at U.S. Smith, the number of sockeyes going through the weir at U.S. Smith Lake, and we would also be in favor of continuing that management option. So U.S. Smith is in a very a very difficult spot when it comes to pink salmon. You have to remember that the Pershing fishery is managed strictly on pink salmon in the area that we're talking about.

U Smith is in the middle of it. We do catch U Smith sockeyes, there's no doubt about it. But I think as the report showed the other day that the department showed, U Smith sockeyes are caught in a lot of different places in southern southeast Alaska, in a lot— at a lot of different times. So there is no scalpel you can take to try to pass a few hundred or a couple of thousand sockeyes, not when you're in the middle of trying to catch 1 to 2 million pinks. So again, we would want to give the department as much flexibility as they can, as they can have.

We want to rebuild and maintain the sockeye stocks. Again, according to the department a couple of days ago, there are a couple of bright spots on the horizon. We're seeing more smolts leave the lake than what we've seen in previous years. So hopefully next year and, and the years beyond, we'll see better returns of adults. We've seen a little bit better returns of jacks to the weir, which is again an indication of hopefully future returns, and that's positive.

And there's also the possibility of working working with the local agriculture association to continue and pick up some rehabilitation work at the lake. So there's some possibilities. There's some bright spots out there. I'm just asking you, you know, don't take the sledgehammer. Let's let the department have as much flexibility as they can when it comes to U.S. Smith and the purse seine fleet.

And I'm not speaking for the gillnetters, but they're also involved in this. We'll do our part to make sure that we pass U.S. Smith sockeye through the commercial fisheries. Thank you. Member Carpenter. Yeah, just a quick question.

So I understand your position on the commercial side. Your preferred position is Option A, but Option B was something that has been in prior action plans. Do you think that the language included in Option B when it was implemented in the past still gave the department the ability to allow allowed the same fishery to take place but also gave them ability to provide opportunity?

Well, for the 2003 management plan, I wrote that management plan. So yes, I think that gives the department the flexibility to do what they need to do in season. I was the area management biologist in Ketchikan when New Smith came to the forefront and we started to see that maybe there's some concerns there. We came up with a management plan, the 2003 management plan, and I think we'd be willing to live within those boundaries. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Susan Doherty, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. I just want to, um, Draw your attention to RC6, page 16, the mention of rehabilitation in this system. Sarah has done rehabilitation in the past here, and we are prepared to help in that respect again. There's some changes in pathology that we believe will make that a more successful program. The only thing that was a detriment was that those fish did not go to the creek to spawn because we were not allowed to imprint them on the stream.

We have gotten permission from Ted Myers that he is not opposed to that in the future. So I want to just let the board know that some of the, some of the reasons it wasn't as helpful as creating adults and then to be able to back off was because of that imprinting. And that is not an issue. So that if you're concerned that either Plan A or B will not get you where you want to go. Our board is supportive of, of some short-term rehabilitation of adults and to boost the outmigrant fries.

And as, as spoken to earlier, the fry number, the outmigrant fries has increased. So the department doesn't want to go there yet, but it is a tool in our toolbox. That I think this board should be receptive of. Thank you. Thanks.

Next. Any questions? No. Next.

Members of the board, Tom Miners. I just wanted to mention I had some interesting conversations with members of the department about how, you know, the The plans in the past have worked and brought— helped bring stocks back, and so I think using those again would be helpful. But it was interesting talking to some folks in the department that it wasn't the commercial fisheries that brought this stock into where it is right now in stock of concerns. It was the blob. And unlike some other systems where it's maybe more questionable whether or not the blob had a huge effect, talking to some of these folks, they say that there's a pretty, pretty strong link to that and that there's some positive positive signs on the horizon, as Phil spoke to.

So I just figured I'd mention that. Thank you. Any questions? Looks like we're done with that. We'll move into discussing, starting with Proposal 135.

Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Anthony Wallach. Proposal 135 would allow the use of seine gear for subsistence permit holders in the waters of Redoubt Bay, closed to commercial fishing only when projected sockeye salmon escapement is greater than 40,000 fish. Mr.

Chair, thank you. I'd also like to note that there is substitute language for this and RC 94, if you'd like to speak to that as well. Anyone like to comment on this?

Okay, go for it. Yes, Mr. Chair, my name is— for the record, my name is Calvin Cassapet. I'm representing the Southeast Regional Advisory Council, um, who has submitted this proposal.

I talked a little bit about this in my public testimony, but we believe that it would benefit subsistence users to allow them to use this gear type only when the projected escapement is going to exceed 40,000. For the record, I wanted to mention that— yeah, Redoubt Lake, last couple years have had a huge surplus of sockeye salmon. According to the numbers that I have here, in '24 there was 210,000 sockeye through the weir, and the weir is above all the fisheries. So this is, this is after all the harvest has been taken. In '23 it was 148,000.

In 2019 it was 56,000. 2018 It was 71,000. This is above the optimal escapement goals. Of 7,000 to 25,000 sockeye salmon. So at levels of high abundance, I think this is a good proposal to allow subsistence users to catch the fish they need.

Also, it might be a tool for trying to manage this escapement because it's clearly way over escapement goals right now. Thank you. Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Chair and the board. Would you please start with your name? Absolutely. For the record, my name is Paulette Moreno. I reside in Sitka and I serve as a sixth I'm the 5th Vice President of Central Council and Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, which is who I'm representing at this time.

Support for Proposal 135 allows— [SPEAKING TLINGIT] —in readout. Tlingit Haida supports.

Proposal from the Southeast Alaska Regional Advisory Committee that would only allow for the use of seine gear in Redoubt Bay subsistence fishery when the escapement is projected to be greater than 40,000 sockeye salmon. I live— I've lived for the past 15 years in Sitka. I was born there. I go out and I dip net for sockeye salmon. I see throughout this season the things that are taking place.

It is something that, especially now during these times, our Native people are going to need to get as much of our traditional and customary food as is not only our Alaska Native people but our Native Alaskan people. Anything that comes forward to encourage saving our food for the winter is something that we support. So, as we talk about this potential allowment of getting more sockeye. I know that when I'm out on the falls and when I see our people and many others out on the falls, we work really hard with these dip nets to get the sockeye that we do. There is an abundance.

It is an expensive fuel and so forth when we go out there. If we have other ways to get more sockeye— sockeye is one of our most favorite and traditional foods that we use. So, klinken haida. Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, that has over 38,000 enrolled tribal citizens, stands in very strong support of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Godfrey has a question for you. So when using a seine for subsistence, how— I probably have a couple questions for you. Number one, the first thing that jumps out to me is, wow, why do you get a great set and you exceed your subsistence harvest numbers? How do you deal with that?

And the other is, are you doing that for a community subsistence? Is there multiple people on the vessel so the harvest number can go up? Just go ahead and stream of consciousness for me here because I've never thought about subsistence with saying here before. Right. Thank you so much.

This is something that I think some of the details would still need to be worked out. But when we do our subsistence dipnetting on the falls, we use, of course, dipnetting equipment. I think that if there was— this proposal was to go through on the boats, it would depend on how many permits that they have. But it would also depend on how much sockeye is over the escapement. And I'm sure that there would be regulation.

A lot of— as we shared today, there are a lot of Alaska Native people who have permits, most of us have really small skiffs. So having bigger boats and the equipment, we would have to really work together to be able to get an abundance of the escapement of sockeye coming. Could you go into a little bit more detail with your question, please? Yeah, well, precisely what I'm wondering is, what if you pull the seine in, you've got a set, and you've— you far exceeded what your subsistence harvest ceiling is. That would be my concern both with gillnetting and seining.

Right. So if we were to pull a net in and there were several sockeye in there and we knew what exactly the regulations were for this new fishery, then I'm sure that we would follow those regulations. So have you ever pulled a net in with sockeye in it? Tens of thousands. Okay, we're up doing that.

So I mostly, I mostly, and we mostly dip net for our sockeye, but this is something that we would be able to do also to be able to pull the nets in, um, as needed. And I think the number of sockeye would be kind of put with the state. We would work with the state, and I do understand that, um, It—. But a dip net or rod and reel, you can control your harvest. I have literally had sets, and, and it may not be related to here.

I've been, I've been on boats with sets of 5,000 sockeye, you know, during crash openers in Kartlik or Red River in Kodiak, Alaska. It happens. I don't— maybe there's no probability of that happening there, but you can't control your harvest level with gillnet or seining, you get what's in the water, what you get. And what if it's an overharvest? That's my concern.

It far exceeds your subsistence. Now you have mortality rate of throwing fish back. Obviously some of them will survive if you get them back in and the weight of the bag doesn't kill them. That's all I'm asking because I am clueless. I don't know about this fishery here.

Right. Member Van Doren, if I—. Well, let me ask the question this way. If you're seining, Wouldn't it be possible if you had a large set to just pull up the rings and let them go over the top of the corks if you had a gigantic bag? Thank you, Madam Chair.

So they're just like any of the fishermen, traditional or some of our commercial or charter fishermen. We don't always know what we're going to pull up. We do if we have rod and reel and we've got one fish on the line. We know what that is, right? When we're out there, when I'm out there dip netting, And I put my net in whitewater, I could get 0, 1, 2, I can get up to 10 sockeye in a net and pull it in.

So if we had this, we're not gonna know exactly how many sockeye are gonna be pulled up in the net. And if it went over a certain amount, if we were to get hundreds of sockeye, we as Native people, and I believe everyone in this room as Alaska Native and Native Alaskans are gonna use that. If it is over an amount and there's a regulation, Of course, we're gonna be aware of that, but I think that because of the times and because of the escapement amount and the abundance, this is actually something that's working really well in the falls. I see a lot of sockeye come through that we are gonna use every single one of those fish to put in jars to dry, to smoke, to share with our neighbors. But if it goes over the amount, that's where the regulations would have to come in.

It would seem as though, you know, if you use a small net, you're only gonna be able to have so many fish, So maybe something to be looked at would be the size of the nets. Does that answer your question, sir? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next speaker.

Good night. Uh, Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan Tlingit and I, Community Council. We support this proposal and we were We will always be supportive of proposals where there is benefit to subsistence or personal use harvesters in the state of Alaska when there's no conservation concerns. And it appears to me, both in conversations with people who live in this area and reading through staff comments, that there is no conservation concern if this proposal were to be implemented. I would like to address from my perspective on the question that was asked of the previous speaker, I have seined in a couple of areas, personally seined or subsistence seined, whatever the right term is in this context.

And there I can understand that there is a concern of potentially getting a seined of more than what you're allocated or what your group's allocated. We're not talking about a huge purse seined from the commercial fishery. And I'm not entirely sure if this proposal actually addresses, say, in length and depth, but we've had many times in my experiences where we, you know, we've had to throw fish back over. And gillnetting definitely would be a concern for us because it definitely would cause a lot of mortality in that. But beach sanding is pretty easy to deal with.

You know, as long as you're not pulling fish onto your skiff and leaving it on the boat for extensive periods of time, they could be easily thrown back in the water. Or as the chair said, all you have to do is just let down the rings and let the fish swim over the corks. Once you know you have what you can actually keep for your possession limit. So in terms of seining, I don't think there's a huge issue with mortality unless you're being very reckless with it.

Member Godfrey. Thanks for that, Kenan. I appreciate that. And just for the collective here, the chair just pointed out the opportunity to braille too, which would— you'd have zero mortality and you can operate with precision that way too, just dipping the net and pulling them out. So I think both of those answer my question effectively and my concerns.

Thanks. I got a question, Keenan. Are you talking specifically about beach seining or seining from a boat? Sorry. Yeah, seining from a boat.

Thank you.

Next. Woody Seer, Sitka AC. We're in support of RC-94. As written, that's effectively what we passed. Some more information about the readout fishery that we have uncovered through meetings.

Yeah, so subsistence seining is 50 fathoms. Bag's not that big.

Testimony to us was that seining in these locations is not particularly effective. There is currently seining gillnet as well allowed in farther areas from the falls. It was proposed that a gillnet would be more effective. In this location to actually harvest fish. I believe that's 50 fathoms as well.

I have not gillnetted at this. So what do you see yourself? I harvest fish for myself and my family at the falls, typically with a gillnet or typically with a dip net. Excuse me.

My opinion is that it's not unreasonable to allow a small gillnet in the location. As stated. I don't see an issue with extremely large sets there with how the fish behave. That's not necessarily how it will go, but that's, that's my opinion as a subsistence personal use user and a professional gillnetter as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Heather Bauscher, representing the Petersburg Advisory Committee. We were mostly in support of this, 11 in support, 1 abstaining. We do have one member of the RAC on our committee, and his point was that we really just need to get more fish caught over there. And just for some background information on the Readout Lake system, it's pretty unique.

It's a meromictic lake. It doesn't turn over like a normal freshwater system. There's a long history of having fertilized that lake to help support the sockeye. But now the sockeye returns are considerable to the point that they're worried about too many fish coming back and crashing the system. And there's no longer funding to continue that fertilization of the lakes.

They're probably going to stop doing that. So when there's really, really big returns, there's even commercial fishing opportunities that open at the mouth of the inlet. And really the problem is that even with all the opportunities communities to catch the fish, they're still not catching enough fish to reduce the concerns of potentially crashing that system if too many fish go back.

Thank you. Thanks.

Anyone else like to speak to this?

Okay, we'll move on to Proposal 136.

For the record, my name is Scott Forbes. I'm the Juneau Area Management Biologist for the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 136. This proposal would increase the possession limit in the Basket Bay/Kook Lake subsistence salmon fishery from 15 to 20 sockeye salmon and the annual limit from 30 to 40 sockeye salmon. Mr.

Chair, thank you. Anyone want to speak to it? Okay, jump up there if you want to talk. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name again, for the record, my name is Calvin Cassapit. I represent the Southeast Subsistence Regional Advisory Council who submitted this proposal.

Proposal. We had significant public testimony at our council meeting about a year ago when we put together this proposal.

Concern about, especially from folks from Rangoon, the length, the length, having to cross Chatham Straits in small boats to catch only 15 sockeye salmon or 30 annually. That's a long way to go for folks in the community to go for just 15 fish. And folks wanted to see a higher bag limit so that was more worth their while to go across Chatham Straits in these small— in their small skiffs. So we— that's the reason we submitted this. And We support it.

It helps, helps the fishing, the people of Angoon be more efficient with their time and gas and, and equipment to go over there across Chatham Straits to get those fish. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Heather Bauscher, Petersburg Advisory Committee. We were split on this, and the folks that were in support had the similar argument that the weather can be rough, so it's a good idea to up the bag limit. Others didn't feel like necessarily that that was good enough reasons to do that, but another person did say that Ngun does need the help and it would be helpful to them. But we were split on that.

Anyone else? Okay, seeing nothing, we'll go on to Proposal 138.

Oh, excuse me, 137. Oh. My apologies.

For the record, Scott Forbes with Comfish. Proposal 137. This proposal would increase the possession limit from 15 to 30 sockeye salmon to match the 30-fish annual limit. Mr. Chair, would the proposer like to speak to this?

Anyone else?

For the record, my name is Paulette Marino. I reside in Sitka and I serve as the 6th Vice President of Central Council of Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. In regard to our support for Proposal 136 or 137, Tlingit Haida supports this proposal from the Hoonah Indian Association that would increase sockeye salmon possession limits from 15 to 30 at Basket Bay to allow subsistence users of the Hoonah, Teneghee, and Angoon communities the opportunity to harvest their limit in fewer trips without increasing overall harvest of the Basket Bay stock.

Anyone else like to speak to this?

Uh, Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan, Klink Island Community Council. Uh, we also support this proposal. Um, just giving a little bit of rationale based off of what I've seen in, uh, department comments. Um, it appear from the data that's been collected by the department, it appears, uh, that Generally speaking, a lot of people only make one run in this particular fishery per year and generally hit their 15-fish cap while doing so. And what that tells me is that kind of two things are happening.

One, and this is kind of speculation, but this is probably very similar to issues that we have here in Ketchikan, is that A lot of people probably only have the funds to make one particular trip to this area. I don't know what it would cost in terms of gas to get to and from this location, but it certainly isn't cheap. Kind of again, similar to what we're experiencing here in Ketchikan. But also, if they're hitting their 15 fish cap, it's not necessarily what they need, but that's what they're getting based off of their circumstances, what they're actually capable of doing financially. So odds are what I would expect to see, anecdotally obviously, but what I would expect to see is if you're upping this bag limit to 30 as opposed to 15, you're probably not going to be seeing very many people reach that 30-fish limit.

It's probably going to be somewhere in between 15 and 30, which would be what that particular household's needs are. Um, maybe I'm wrong, but that's certainly what has, what has happened when bag limits have increased in other areas, both in Ketchikan and Prince of Wales, from my experience. Thank you. Next speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, uh, my name is Calvin Cassavette. I'm with the Southeast Subsistence Regional Advisory Council.

The council supported this proposal as well, in addition to the proposal that we submitted. You know, the limits are lower on this one, but we still support it in case ours is not accepted. I also wanted to mention something about daily limits and annual limits. And this is not me speaking as a representative of the council, but this is speaking as a person who's heard a lot of testimony at council meetings about.

Annual limits and daily limits. And I believe that the most important— I mean, it's important for us to put in— I'm not so much concerned about daily limits, but as far as the annual limit goes, I would like to see all these systems just be annual limits. No daily limits, no possession limits, just an annual limit. And people can choose if they want to go on a trip, if they want to take their whole annual limit on that time, or they only take half of it because, you know, they have limited processing capacity back at home and they're going to come back next week. But it leaves flexibility for the users themselves to decide how they want to— how they want to fish that annual limit.

And that's just my opinion, and that's That's kind of how I look at things, but it just seems to me just like just having an annual limit and letting people choose how they want to fish it. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to Proposal 138 this time. Mr.

Chair, my name is Jessica Etheridge. I'm the Sport Fish Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Juneau Glacier Bay Area. Proposal 138. This proposal seeks to prohibit snagging in the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge. Mr.

Chair, thank you. Anyone like to speak to this? Okay, we'll move on to Proposal 139.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 139. This proposal seeks to prohibit snagging within the Don D. Statter Harbor Auq Bay located in Juneau. Mr. Chair, anyone like to speak to this?

Okay. We'll move on to Proposal 140. Mr. Chair, for the record, I'm Kelly Ruppert, the Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 140 would require the use of single barbless circle hooks in the sport fishery from April 1st through June 14th.

Mr. Chair, anyone like to speak to this?

Matt, your microphone. Sorry. Thank you. This proposal— Matt Donahoe for the record. This proposal was submitted by Cody Cowan, who's— I think he's up in Carroll Inlet, and I've been able to get a hold of him off and on, but not regularly.

His intent of this proposal was only for the stocks of concern corridors when stocks of concern management was in place, when you cannot keep a king salmon, not for the whole region. So I don't know if the process allows, but if the language of that proposal could be changed to say just the stocks of concern areas that are already closed for king salmon, that J-hooks, barbed hooks, wouldn't be permitted while the stocks of concern are closed. And they would be permitted once the stocks of concern were open. It's an attempt to lower the mortality of hook and releasing.

Stocks that concern king salmon. He didn't want to have it for the whole region and knew that that would not pass. So that's all I got on that. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't want to repeat, Matt, but this was covered in the Sitka AC. They have language in there. Name, please. Oops, Kerry Malin. So the Sika Reisi covered this, and Cody, the proposer, was in the room, and they came up with language.

So what the previous person was speaking about, the language is in the Sika Reisi.

I thought I made notes of it, but I can't find it. I think it's page 8. I think it was in there. I just want to explain a little bit about it. I did research on hooking fish.

It's in my— It's in my personal comments. I just want to read something from it. Um, mooching with Angling Unlimited Sika. Mooching is our method because it's more fun, more effective, and gives the sense of achievement and learning you can only get from hooking your own. They then went on and said salmon typically inhale a bait, they don't nibble.

So this is the concern about this gear in a place where you're hooking and releasing. There's a picture in my personal comments on the damage a hook can do when a fish actually inhales it.

293 Is my PC. Okay. Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Forest Freedom for Southeast Alaska Guides Organization. We oppose this proposal. It was a little bit ambiguous, which has been a little bit clarified here.

It didn't— wasn't species-specific or area-specific. It was region-wide, which would be problematic. We have area, area means and methods to control our fisheries and protect our conservation concerns, and that's being done by area right now. So we would ask the board to have maybe further clarification at a future meeting if we're going to go down this road. Thank you.

Thank you.

Woody Sear, Sitka AC. We supported this proposal 12-2 as amended in RC 127, page 3, if you'd like that language. Thank you.

Woody, would you repeat— would you just repeat that again, that RC? RC127. Great, thank you. Page 3, it's about halfway down.

Casey Mapes, Yak-Tat AC. I just wanted to clarify for you what I stated in our opening comment. Our board member chairman at the time of our meeting had received information after the time that we had to put in a proposal from guides and from users on the SeaTac that they didn't want to have any more mortality on steelhead than they had to using barbless hooks for what is largely a hook and release fishery where they hope to go. So his intent was to try to put a rider onto an existing proposal to get something in there to try to get this disabilities' needs met. As written, without the RC that was explained to us here just in the last couple comments, it does sound region-wide, and that was why he was trying to attach it to that.

And that was where we were going with that. Our desire to have that proposal that we added on there is still valid, and we did vote to support this proposal, and it sounds even better with the the amended RC that's been presented to you. So thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Proposal 141.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Kelly Ruppert, Sport Fish Division.

Proposal 141 would prohibit the use of bait in all saltwater sport fisheries of Southeast Alaska between April 1st and June 14th. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

For the record, Matt Donahoe. This is submitted by Cody Cowan again, and it's for the same reasons, to reduce mortality of hooking and releasing stocks of concern king salmon, and that's all I got on that. Thank you.

Woody Seer, Sitka AC. So once again, in RC127, we've got some language for amendment if you want to get it on just stocks of concern instead of region-wide. Yeah, and yeah, it's page 3 once again. We supported 11-3 on this proposal. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We'll go on to Proposal 142.

Mr. Chair, Kelly Ruppert, Sport Fish Division. Proposal 142 would open Ketchikan Creek to sport fishing year-round and establish a king salmon bag and possession limit of 2 per day, any size. And king salmon in Ketchikan Creek would not count towards the nonresident annual limit. Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Any other comments?

Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan, Klinkan Haida Community Council. Although I think for context of this proposal, I also say I'm a member of the Ketchikan EDC. Just a little bit of a context. The—. This proposal directly deals with the creek about 100 yards that direction, or whatever direction it is.

And this is— this is a fishery that I'm all too familiar with, not only because I've, uh,.

Lived here my whole life, but I've also fished it my whole life and spent 4 summers at the hatchery right up the road. 2 Is when it was operated by the Ketchikan Indian community when I was a kid. Spent my summers when I was 14, 15 years old there, and then 2 summers when I was in college when it was operated by Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association. And I don't want to necessarily speak on behalf of Sarah, and I won't, but from my experience, and I'll refer you to actually AC-7 as well, I probably should have started that to begin with.

This, this fishery for king salmon is pretty much entirely hatchery stock. There's, there's no wild stock here. So everything— and this is terminal harvest area for hatchery. And in discussions with our Ketchikan EAC, there's no concern for pretty much overharvesting of this particular fishery because the hatcheries here don't use the returning fish at Ketchikan Creek as future years brood. They, they do have it as potential backup if Whitman Lake Hatchery does not reach their numbers that they need.

But on a general year-to-year basis, we— that fish doesn't really get used for anything. So I would encourage the board to look at the amended actions that the Ketchikan AC took, which essentially changes the possession limit from 2 to 5 and then clarifies a minimum length, which is 16 inches, just to avoid confusion about catching outgoing smolts when they're released every year. So the 16-inch limit should protect those outgoing smolts and mainly target jacks and anything bigger than that.

That's all I got. Thank you, Keenan. That was RC 87. No, AC 7. There isn't an official RC in there yet, but I could probably round up the catch can AC to officially submit that as an RC if you would like.

But those are comments in AC 7. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to Proposal 143.

Good morning. I'm Craig Schwanke, the Prince of Wales Area Management Biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 143. This proposal would increase region-wide combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches in length for Southeast Alaska.

Go ahead, Kurt Whitehead. I just wanted to remind the board that we submitted RC 118 after the Colock AC reviewed the meeting minutes, and this— the intent of the prop was to increase the bagging session limits in the Colock Lake drainage as well as submit a second prop. The intent was not for all of Southeast, therefore we decided to withdraw Prop 144 and amend 143 so it reflects just Prince of Wales.

Anyone else like comment? Okay, move on. Get up quicker.

Well, I am going to make this quicker. Again, for the record, my name is Calvin Caspit. I represent the Southeast Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, and this— my comment here is going to apply to all these trout proposals, 143 through 140, um, 148. So you won't have to hear me say this again. So this is for all those.

Um, again, I just wanted to mention that under federal subsistence regulations, that federally qualified subsistence users already may harvest, um, 6 cutthroat rainbow trout in combination, no size limits. Already in these areas. So that's southeast-wide. Fairly qualified users can already harvest trout under our regulations. I just wanted to point that out.

Also related to that, I just also wanted to say, tell you a little bit about that particular fishery.

Between 2010 and 2022, from federal permit returns, Region-wide in Southeast, an average of 36 cutthroat trout, rainbow trout have been harvested annually in this fishery. So only 36 fish throughout the whole region, um, is our harvest from, from these permits. And also, our staff said it seems that harvest seems largely to be associated with salmon fishing. So people catch a trout while they're salmon fishing, they, they're allowed to keep it. So anyway, that's my same comment for all these other ones coming up about cutthroat rainbow.

Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else? Okay, we'll move on to 144.

Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 144 is the same as Proposal 143. It would increase region-wide combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches in length for Southeast Alaska.

Comments? All right. 145. Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 145.

This proposal would increase Klawock River drainage on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish and lower the minimum length of harvest from 14 to 11 inches. Mr. Chair. Proposer.

Curt Whitehead on behalf of the Cloaque AC. The Cloaque AC chair has been seeking increased bag and possession limits in the Cloaque River drainage for several years, and our chairman has also worked with the Cloaqueenya Corporation conducting studies on the trout and sockeye salmon relationship in this drainage. Our vice chair, who is also the mayor of Klawock, firmly supports Props 143, 144, 145, as do all the AC members. It's a very healthy population of trout in this drainage. We'll move on to 146.

Greg Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 146. This proposal would increase 108 Creek drainage on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches in length. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. We'll move on to 147.

Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 147. This proposal would increase Neck Lake on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches and prohibit the use of bait year round. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Move on to 148.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Jeff Rice. I am the sport fish area management biologist for the Petersburg Regal area. Proposal 148.

This proposal would repeal the minimum size requirement of 25 inches or greater for cutthroat trout in Eagle Lake in order to align with general provisions in Southeast Alaska, which allow for a bag and possession of 2 cutthroat trout no less than 11 inches and no greater than 22 inches in length. Mr. Chair, comment.

Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC. In the discussion about this proposal, it was acknowledged that there's a lot of fish in Eagle Lake, to the point that they were capturing incredible numbers when they were set in the traps. So the folks on the advisory committee felt that it was fine to liberalize that fishing and felt like more fish could be removed and that Eagle Lake in the Bradfield is really remote, so there isn't a lot of traffic to be concerned about. So we were in unanimous support of that.

Okay. 149.

Mr. Chair, my name is Jessica Etheridge. I'm the Sport Fish Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Juneau Glacier Bay Area. Proposal 149. This proposal seeks to prohibit the use of bait and establish a catch and release fishery for trout using only single barbless hooks within Peterson Creek.

Mr. Chair. Okay. Looks like we'll move on to 150. Good morning, Mr.

Chair. For the record, my name is Rick Hoffman. I'm the area biologist for the Yakutat area. Proposal 150. This would change the weekly subsistence salmon fishing time from 6 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. And the end time from 6:00 PM to 11:59 PM.

Comments?

Could you—. Madam Chair, board members, Casey Maves representing Yak-Tet AC. This proposal was presented by the.

Ak-Tai Tlingit Tribe, we moved unanimously to support it. We have a— as you'll hear in further discussions on other proposals, we have a fairly high abundance of sockeye returning to the SeaTac system, which is primarily where our subsistence are harvested.

So with plenty of fish, what it mostly comes down to is providing a little more time opportunities for the harvesters Given weather conditions or whatever else a person might have going on in their life, having a little bit longer timeframe to work with might make it easier for them to get there and get what they need to do done. So based on that, we supported this unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and the board, my name is Kai Montour. I am a citizen of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, and I would also like to ask to support this proposal. Subsistence fishing is still a very huge thing for my people in our village. Nisheesh.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, move on to 151. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record, my name is Jason Pollack. I'm the Yakutat Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 151 would modify the nonresident annual limit for king salmon in the freshwaters of the Yakutat area and the Situk River to 2 king salmon 20 inches or greater in length per year. King salmon harvested in Yakutat area freshwaters by non-residents would not count towards the non-residents' annual harvest limit established by the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Mr.

Chair. Thanks. Anyone want to speak?

Casey Babes, Yakutat AC. We move to support this proposal unanimously.

Okay, move on to 152. Jason Pollack, Sport Fish Yakutat. Proposal 152 seeks to amend the SeaTac, Anklin Inlet, and Lost River King Salmon Fisheries Management Plan to reflect recent management strategies. Mr. Chair, comment.

Madam Chair, board members, Casey Mapes, yaktaht'asi. I wanted to clarify for you that in my opening comments, I stated, even though you have it accurately presented in our minutes, I stated that we were opposed to this proposal unanimously. We were actually unanimously in support of it. We recalled it to the table after new information was presented to us. And we understood it better and we changed our stance on it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Move on to 153.

Mr. Chair, Jason Pollack, Yakutat Sport Fish. Proposal 153 would close sport fishing in the Situk River 50 yards upstream and 50 yards downstream of the Nine Mile Bridge on Forest Highway 10 from June 1st through August 15th until the upper end of the king salmon escapement goal of 1,050 fish is met. Mr. Chair, comment.

Madam Chair, board members, Casey Mapes, Yakutat AC. This proposal was presented by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. We move to support it unanimously. Their intent with this proposal is this area being on the road system, you have a bridge that creates a deep pool, dark and cool. The fish feel protected, and so the fish tend to stock up in this area.

On either side of it, in the area that's requested to be closed, it's shallow flats, and this is where the fishermen want to wade out in there to access the casting at the fish under the bridge area. What's happening is with a higher and higher prevalence of traffic in this area, their concern is for the damage to the redds on the bottom where in-stream spawning takes place. So they're trying to raise awareness with a couple proposals here, this one and the next one, that will try to be more proactive about protecting these in-stream spawning areas. Thank you. I got a question for you, Casey.

So my question is, this specifically speaks about king salmon, but during the time of year that we're talking about, are there steelhead that also hold and are present in that area? Through the chair, yes, there is. And I guess just to follow up to that, I assume that this is a— I mean, I would assume that this is kind of a combat fishing area. To a certain degree when these fish pile in there. Is that kind of a concern of Yakutat?

It absolutely is, through chair. Absolutely is. You know, throughout the rest of the season, there's a high abundance of fishermen after several different species right in this area. So it really would be a good idea to kind of watch it a lot closer than what we have been. Thank you.

Okay, go ahead, Kai.

My name is Kai Montour. I'm a citizen of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, and I would like to echo Mr. Mapes' observations of the area and ask the board to support this proposal. Sheesh.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to 154.

Jason Pollack, Sport Fish and Aquatic. Proposal 154 would close an additional 4 river miles to sport fishing in the Sea-Tuck River from Fish and Game markers located at the West Fork of the Sea-Tuck Confluence to Fish and Game markers located at the outlet of Sea-Tuck Lake from April 15th to May 15th. Mr. Chair.

Comments. Okay, move on to 150. Okay, Case, gotta be quick. Real briefly, Casey Mapes, the Actide AC. As stated in my previous comment, this intent is to take better care of the reds in the spawning area and make awareness to the foot traffic that takes place there a lot more prevalent than what it currently is.

Thank you.

Okay. 155.

Jason Pollack, Fishing Sport Fish Yakutat. Proposal 155 seeks to increase the sport fish bag and possession limit for sockeye salmon in the freshwaters flowing into the Sea Tuck-Anklin Estuary to 6 fish per day, 12 in possession. Mr. Chair.

[Speaker] Casey Mapes, Yak-Tet AC. Madam Chair, board members. So what you have right now is the bag limit is 3 per day until such time as 30,000 sockeyes have been counted through the SeaTac weir. Then there's the possibility of it going to 6 a day. This came about by way of a proposal we presented to the board in 2009.

And what we did was we voted unanimously to oppose the changes to our original proposal at our meeting. And what we decided was to stick with our original comments in our 2009 proposal, which was the reasonings behind it.

With the sockeye harvest, what you see in the area, our community Our intent is to— we want to have sports fishermen come and enjoy the area. And what you see is a large percentage of these fish tend to get hooked in the outside of the mouth rather than bite. It's called flossing. And it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth right off of the start that that fish didn't intend to bite your tackle. And that's the way sockeye fishing is handled all over the state.

So we understand that. But when you're already heading down that road and then you take a look at going to a straight 6-bag limit right from the start, starts to feel a lot more like just another trip to Costco's. And that's not what we want our fishery to be. We want it to be a sport and enjoyed. It shouldn't be about, you know, getting your cooler topped off every time you come.

And that's why we wrote that proposal, that, and we felt that it was just sound management practice that you should have a reasonable amount of fish secured through your weir to, you know, keep your fish returning. You gotta have some to get up to breed, right? And that was our intent. We wanted to see at least half of those fish get up there. If you were to start right from the beginning with a 6-fish bag limit, what you're gonna see is the lodges start advertising it as such.

So when people hit the ground, they're going to expect those 6 fish.

That was posted to them. And if for some reason the department has to tone that back down to 3 fish because we get a low return year, now they're going to be mad. That's not what I was told. And it's going to be hard to go back on. So we were hoping to just keep it as it is.

Thank you. Member Carpenter. So you're opposed? We are opposed. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to Proposal 170.

Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Rick Hoffman. I'm the commercial fisheries manager for Yakutat. Proposal 170 would close the waters of Malaspina Lake to commercial fishing. Mr.

Chair, comments on 170?

Mr. Chair, we as an AC and Yak-Tet would unanimously oppose this proposal based on the two users that fish this giant system have and their families have for years and years and years. We asked the department at the time of our meeting, do you have a resource problem? Answer: no. And then when we talk to these fellows, as presented, where the marking locations would be established, it will essentially kill the fishery of this river.

What we've seen in Yakutat with the prices of fish stagnate or go down, and we don't even have an air carrier anymore, is we've lost about 3/4 of the area that we're able to effectively commercial fish in. We're condensed into the Situk in the Yakutat Bay area. So by losing one more area, it just decreases our opportunity that much further. And we didn't see a need for it. There's tools in the bag right now that can manage it through emergency order.

Every time you set a marker, it tends to turn into stone. And we just didn't see the need for that at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

We're going to take a quick break here. And I just note in the meantime that the proposals coming up, there's RC-17. RC 176 that people might want to look at, RC 175, to prepare for the next proposal. What do you say, take like 10 minutes? 15.

Thanks.

Okay, well, we should probably just breeze right through this other half here.

So we've been through 170. God, what is the next one? No kidding. Okay. Proposal 156.

Department. For the record, I'm Flip Prior. I'm the Aquaculture Section Chief with the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 156. If adopted, this proposal would reduce current permitted capacity of pink and chum salmon at each Southeast Alaska private nonprofit hatchery by 25%.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any comments?

Proposer in the room would like to speak to this? Nope. Okay, just line up, folks, because you can— we got a long room. Go right to the back wall.

Keep it brief. Come on, jump up there. Who's going first?

Mr. Chair, Jackie Foss, trawler, also NCR board member. I would like the board to know that, uh, as a trawler who depends on also Chinook and Coho, the loss of chum and pink production would impact these other fisheries, these other species that many other folks depend on besides chum. And so, like any operation, you need diversification in order to be profitable, and this would take a major pillar from our ability to be profitable for all of our various diversity. Thank you.

Oh, one more thing. It's very, very challenging to respond to language from a submitted RC at the time when public comment is happening. It— we need time to work and digest through it. If the proposer knew this was going to happen prior to the day and people were here all week, it's very helpful to talk through that before we're actually required to have our one chance to speak on the record. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone. And just remind you, this is new information, okay? And since this proposal has been out there a lot, keep the new information brief.

Hit your microphone, please. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay, there. Yeah, I am Peter Neville Johnson.

I'm a troller, but mainly I'm testifying at this moment on behalf of the king salmon. Um, from my perspective, I think it would be prudent to separate the pink hatchery proposal from the chum salmon. I see very different circumstances there. Very briefly on the pink salmon, I would support a reduction there because as I said before, there's substantial science and data that shows a direct correlation between the decline in king salmon numbers and the average weight of the king salmon and the increase in pink salmon out in the Gulf. Economically, there's only— I'm told there's only one pink hatchery program here in Southeast, up in the northern end.

And relative to other pink salmon hatchery production, it's relatively small.

I believe that the overall impact to the economy of Southeast Alaska in the long run by having more bigger kings, coho, sockeye, chum, instead of more pink hatchery fish, is we're gonna come out ahead. So I oppose the reduction— I'm sorry, I support the reduction in the pink hatchery. Thank you. The chum I see as a separate thing. We are getting some red flags on the chum, like has already brought up some of the West Crawfish chum showing up.

Sir, thank you. Thanks, there's a huge line behind you. We heard you. I'll get on here. Fish and Game and the hatcheries are working on that.

There is some science about issues, problems that may be coming from the chum. It's relatively small compared to the science on the pinks. K, thank you. On to the next one. We heard you.

Can I have—. You said briefly and you've extended that too long already. So I apologize. Okay, adiós. Thank you.

Good to see you.

Good morning, my name is Jeremy Bynum. I'm representative for House District 1 for the Alaska Legislature. I just want to say, first of all, thank you for being here in Ketchikan. Chair, board, Commissioner Vincent Lang, I'm here to reference RC 170 that we had submitted as Southeast legislators. There are 4 of us that have signed on to that.

You also have an additional RC 169 That is from Representative Hemmschulte. The 4 legislators have signed on this is myself, Senator Jesse Keele, Representative Andy Storey, and Representative Sarah Hannon. In our letter to you today, we are showing— demonstrating that we have some concern about process and also a bit of a voice from Southeast we feel like is not being heard. We know that there have been over 66 stakeholders and over nearly 200 individual comments in opposition to this proposal, and we are sending this letter to state that we are also in opposition to this proposal at this time and any amendment that would demonstrate a similar result. So I won't go any further than that, other than to say that we are looking forward to seeing additional time being taken in collaboration with the departments and also with our stakeholders in the region.

I appreciate your time today, and thank you. Ver Van Dork. Thank you for being here, and thank you for the communication. You know, as chair, I'm curious in what the process concerns that that you have related to the board process. And, you know, that is kind of my purview.

So I would be interested in hearing and articulating what those process issues, concerns are. We obviously don't want to weigh in too often into the board's decision-making process. We just had some grave concerns about this specific proposal and the impacts on our, um, hatchery programs here in Southeast Alaska. And we are obviously getting a lot of feedback at our offices, and we just want to make sure that there's a thorough science-based result that comes from any decisions that are being made here today. And so at this time, uh, we are in opposition to this specific proposal, uh, but obviously we would We want to have the voice of the people heard, but also we would like to make sure that the board is well informed on impacts as we move into the future.

So we just want to make sure that there is a thorough vetting process before a decision is made of this magnitude that impacts the board. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for being here.

Next.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Southeast Alaska Guides Organization, Forest Brady speaking. On their behalf, we opposed this proposal. I want to echo just the previous comments there about further vetting of this process. We do— we have mined through some of the material and we do understand correlations being drawn between pink numbers and drops in size and age and returns on other species.

However, in our view, it's inconclusive. And I'd like to just point out, like, our personal experience is we understand what the hatchery production situations are here. We have worked really closely with them, not NCRA, but Sarah and DIPAC on the sport fish surcharge bill that hasn't really made it back. And it was supporting some of the hatchery production. So we're pretty aware of their budgets and how they, how they're supporting the coho and chum production, which really is not a moneymaker for them.

But I'd just like to reiterate, in case you didn't understand, hadn't heard it in the past that about 50% of King harvest, sport fish harvest in the Juneau area and about up to 30% here in Ketchikan is hatchery production. So it is a— in the common property fisheries, it's a big component. So thank you. Thank you.

Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan Tlingit and Community Council. But I think it's also important to note that where my comments are coming from, I have.

A bachelor's degree from the University of Alaska Fairbanks in the College of Fishery and Ocean Sciences, where I got a degree that mainly focused on salmon ecology. And I think it's important to know the actual science that is being represented or not being represented within this particular proposal. I, I can't overemphasize enough that if the overarching goal is to get rid of hatcheries based off of negative impacts, in the marine and even freshwater ecosystems. This is beyond the most disingenuous way to go about it. And here's why.

I understand the argument for everything to be as wild and pristine as it possibly could be. I'm not going to argue whether I support or oppose hatcheries. I know that they certainly have a current benefit to every single sector of fisheries within especially Southeast Alaska. But what is not being considered by the proposer and many of the people who do support this proposed proposal is the dramatic impacts that are going to be had on the marine ecosystems, particularly the food web within pretty much every single part of Southeast Alaska. 25% Is an insane number to start off with, or even 20% as, as being proposed in RC-176, or I believe that's the number.

Again, if the, if the objective is to get rid of these hatcheries, you don't do it 25% of the time. There's going to be severe and dramatic negative impacts in the ecosystem, both from the top down and the bottom up. And you're not going— you're not going just to see a reduction in salmon, but you're going to see a reduction in marine mammals. You're going to see a reduction in salmon sharks and pretty much everything that has— that uses salmon as a food resource. That's not even getting into the economics that impact the people on it.

So Just overall, in general, these proposals were not genuinely thought out very well. If you're going to move forward with this, this needs to be a plan that is over a 10 to 15 year period so that the ecosystem isn't experiencing such a dramatic shock.

Anyways, that's— I have a lot to say. There's going to be a ton of other people behind me that are going to be able to speak more eloquently. Eloquently to a few different things. But from a salmon ecologist, this is a horrible idea. Thank you.

At least the way you're going about it, or potentially going about it. Thank you, Kenan. Next.

Heather Boucher, Petersburg AC. Um, we were in unanimous opposition to this. Um, initial concerns were that the proposer is not from this region and doesn't understand the impacts that this would have for communities. Um, there was also concern that this was not specific enough or based in science enough to warrant any support, and are opposed to any reduction outside of the RPT process, whether it's Proposal 156 or RC 176. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Scott Wagner, general manager for NCRA. And for the record, we were opposed to 156. We are opposed to the alternative language proposed. We have concerns with process and timing too. I have been here since the start of the meeting.

Others have as well. It has been great to have a discussion, be able to evaluate any alternative language from a board member prior to starting committee of the whole.

I will note the proposed language change wouldn't affect any of us in this room. It would affect two operators, the Sickasound Science Center and Armstrong Keta, the most. They have submitted two RCs, RC-171 and 167, and demonstrating that a cut of 20% would likely be— make their existence financially unfeasible. So I think that The board should consider that heavily in your thought process. And once again, they're the, the only operators in Southeast who have any pink production that is taken on any scale for cost recovery or through any intercepting fisheries.

This proposal would potentially have the effect to affect Instrag as we are required by the department to produce 300,000 pink salmon as stream mitigation. So you're going to cut our stream mitigation 20% as well. So something to think about. I've got a question for Member Carpenter. Thanks, Scott.

I'm not sure if there's anyone here from Armstrong Hatchery, but, you know, you spoke to— my understanding is, is that Armstrong, specific to their pink enhancement, and if you can't answer this, fine, maybe somebody else can. With the reduction that's shown in the substitute language, what impacts would that have on other production at either your facility or their facility, specific to the regards of their ability to conduct cost recovery at a specific level to provide opportunities for king salmon and coho production for all user groups? Well, I refer you to their RC. It mentions that, but they do They produce coho salmon that are intercepted by mainly by troll, but also by charter sport. And we have been working with them.

They have struggled over the years. They are near the end of their rope financially. They've taken out multiple loans from the department. And yeah, a cut of 20% would likely put them out of business. But we do cooperate with them to hopefully help them maximize their pink production so they could stay afloat.

Thank you. Member Chamberlain.

My question was answered. Mr. Carpenter asked my question. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Steve.

Good morning. Steve Reifenstahl. I would like to finish answering that question through the Chair, Mr. Carpenter. Overall, any cut including the modified language would affect Coho and Chinook production. We would—.

They don't pay the bills. They're very expensive. They don't really return one-to-one. It's less than one-to-one in terms of benefit cost. So that has to come from somewhere.

So a cut in pink and chum would result in lowering budgets for Coho and Chinook. And as you heard from Sport Charter Group, they can— they catch significant numbers of Coho and Chinook. And we had a full discussion of this yesterday in the Chinook or the management plan part of the meeting. And they're trying to get more fish and we help with that. And so that would be a, you know, a significant negative effect.

I have a, a number of comments here. I want to give you some sense of the RPT and its responsibility and some actions they've taken. So for example, mm, back in the '90s, there was an underperforming facility called Myers Chuck north of Ketchikan here. We recommended to the commissioner that they rescind that permit which the commissioner did. There was another facility that was near bankruptcy, Alaska Aquaculture out of Wrangell.

Through the RPT, that was rescinded. And there is Baronoff Warm Springs, which has been proposed as a hatchery site by a person in Juneau who claims the governor is 100% behind him and he can go ahead and build that hatchery. The RPT has voted that down 3 times in the last 10 years. So these organizations and the RPT process is not just approving things or rubber stamping, however you might see it. They are fully vetted through the department and fishermen benefits, the communities, and so forth.

Let's see.

[Speaker:MR. WRIGHT] I guess in terms of the amended language, this is not in my mind a compromisable circumstance. Any cut is going to really affect the finances as I've mentioned. I also think it opens a can of worms. I mean, if you're suggesting that you can make this kind of move, then there could be proposals forget about the RPT process, just come to the Board of Fish when the board composition is more favorable and raise the number just by fiat. It just avoids the process that has worked very well for nearly 50 years.

As we have said, we agree with what the Commissioner has stated in the cut in at Crawfish Inlet, and we are going to work diligently with the department to get to where we need to be there. And you've heard plenty of testimony on that.

Uh, the RCs that the former speaker mentioned, there are two facilities in the state that this would be devastating to. One is the Sitka Sound Science Center, which produces amazing science, brings scientists from around the United States to work on marine issues, and this would compromise their ability to do that. They rely on that cost recovery from pink salmon to operate those programs. That is a huge benefit to Sitka and to Southeast Alaska.

Last critical point here. Hit it hard. Well, the— emphasize— the proposer who's not here and has not taken the time to represent this proposal predicates his reasoning that this is all tied to the Yukon-Kuskokwim. And we have submitted over 100 pages of scientific papers and rationale and narrative that shows that linkage does not exist. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain, Steve. Hold on, come back.

Steve, I wanted to touch on a couple points with the person who, who's, who's proposed hatchery site was voted down a few times. Was he a part of that aquaculture board or a part of any aquaculture associations or on any boards? No, he has his own. It's a family operation. So would you— so correct me if I'm wrong, but the RPT boards are made up of half board members of aquaculture associations associations and half department, correct?

Yes, and there's ex officio of what is called non-regional associations. And so he could be considered a non-regional or some people call them mom and pop. That's kind of derogatory. I don't use that term, but that is common. Okay.

So, and I'll touch on that later. Also, when you're saying some of these aquaculture, these, these hatcheries would be devastated by this, can you point to where in 1610.455 or any regulation that prohibits the— that would prohibit the hatchery from going through full cost recovery? To just to take everything for cost recovery and nothing for the public? Is that— is that What you're saying? What I'm saying is, how does, how does a reduction in production affect the— where, where, where in regulation is, is cost recovery tied to production?

Well, I guess I can't cite a regulation, but there in the Comprehensive Salmon Plan, there are provisions that associations that are non-regionals— Science Center would be one, uh, some of the failed ones I mentioned, uh, and if this person were to come to pass in Warm Springs, those non-regionals are expected to contribute 60% of their value to the common property. 40% To cost recovery. That's a guideline. Most of the regional associations operate at 70-75% value to common property, and we don't even count the sport fish. And it's, it's significant, but we do not count that value.

You could talk to the sport charter of the value of a Chinook that they catch off ours, or a coho. It's A large number. I mean, a Chinook, I think, is $1,000 to a sport charter. But we don't count those values because we are paid for by fishermen. And so we just calculate the value that we provide to those common property fisheries and not the others.

If we— I think our values would go up probably by 50% if we did count the sport fish contribution. Okay. Thank you. Good enough? Yep.

Okay. We're going to move on. Thanks.

Members of the board, Tom Miners. Following Steve is not easy, but I'll try and provide some new information here. One of the pieces of new information is we have this RC, RC-176, and I understand the desire when you have a difficult situation to look for a compromise, and maybe that's what 176 is doing, is looking for a compromise. But no one has asked for a compromise. We have said no.

That has been the overwhelming sentiment of everyone that has come up here, and I'd like to reiterate that sentiment. But if even 176 were to pass with a 7% reduction in chum salmon, what we would have— what would come to pass at the— in my opinion, at the aquaculture boards, having spent time on a lot of them, is we'd have to decide whose programs got the axe. And deciding whose programs get the axe is not fun. Currently we have, you know, sort of— we're feeling pretty copacetic between the gear groups. And if we start cutting programs, we'd have a lot of gear group infighting.

And nobody wants to see that. And that has the potential to come in front of you guys and have you guys have to deal with that. And we're hoping to avoid that sort of action and behavior. In addition to that, we would not vindictively, but out of necessity, start cutting king salmon programs. And we've just spent 3 days of testimony on how everybody wants king salmon.

So even this, you know, smaller production reduction would have really outsized impacts. And I don't think those are the sort of impacts that we really want to see. In addition to this, just adding to what Steve said, you know, one of the people that would feel the pink salmon impact of this RC would be the Sitka Sound Science Center. And that group hasn't been talked about much here, but it's really a great research place. It's not a production hatchery.

They do research, they do education with tourism, they do outreach, they tell people the story of what happens in Southeast Alaska. And I think that's really important. And to have such an outsized impact on them would be really a disservice. Thanks. Thank you.

Next.

Members of the board, James Miller, general manager of Clover Pass Resort, and here on behalf of Alaska Sport Fishing Expeditions. I'm here mostly to provide another data set for some of these hatcheries, I believe, that comes from the sport fishing side. As far as I know, we run two of the largest sport fish processors in Southeast Alaska. We collect fish everywhere from Belle Island, Myers, Chuck, clear down to Cape Shak and Westrock, Mary's Island. Thousands of fishermen use us to process their fish.

We see tens of thousands of fish across our docks and we keep track of these numbers. I've just— the salmon side of things, 52.8% of what we see across our docks are pink salmon. 37.5% Are silver salmon and 9.7% are the other 3 species of salmon. As we read through these proposals, we are opposed to them wholeheartedly. We know that chum salmon fund these hatcheries to enable them to, to release Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, which We've been able to trace over 63% of these cohos that we harvest are in those later months, and they're all going to Neets Bay in this Inside Passage.

So at a 63%, this is what keeps our customers coming back year after year. They come to catch kings, they come to catch silvers, but these pinks and these cohos, that's what keeps them around. We also have hundreds of locals who use us as a processor, and I imagine they'd say the same thing. Thank you. Thank you.

Next.

Emily Scott, uh, troller out of Sitka. I could talk about chums all day, but I will try to keep it brief. My skipper is Eric Jordan, one of the founders of Ensura and the graduate of a Sheldon Jackson Hatchery program. I'll refer you to his PC-237 Regarding history of NCSRA and lack of evidence that Southeast hatchery salmon ocean ranching programs are hurting the genetics or survival of Southeast Alaska wild salmon stocks. But what it doesn't mention is that over 95% of his income, and therefore my income, from trolling last year came from chums.

I hold a degree in Earth and Environmental Science and Marine Science from Boston University. Completing courses on anadromous fish. I initially moved to Sitka to work at the Sitka Sound Science Center. I'll refer you to their RC-167 regarding the financial impacts of this potential reduction and impacts to their educational hatchery programs. I gave tours to hundreds of visitors in Sitka regarding the hatchery programs and plethora of research done at the Science Center regarding the effects of hatchery chum and pink salmon on wild stocks.

Currently, the Tsik'isáwn Science Center is starting a research project looking at how temperature changes impact Chinook's molt energetics.

Next, please defer to the Southeast experts on this issue.

Thank you. Next.

Yeah, good morning. Jeff Farber, a commercial fisherman out of Sitka. I'd just say that I agree with all the previous testifiers on this comment, and probably likely the ones behind me as well. Um, but I, they covered so many bases, but I think one that hasn't been covered that well— so we just had a very contentious debate in front of you. I think the term we're being used is, uh, we took it in the chin, and that was a 3% uncompensated reallocation.

That's— those are the kind of things that trickle back to our community, and we, we get into contentious gear group fights. You've heard that. But also within the community themselves, the folks that aren't necessarily commercial fishermen and sport fishermen. And just seeing that, because I'd fish in sikka a lot. I'm in the upper 25% quartile of earnings for the troll fishery because I fish year-round.

Not because I'm a great fisherman necessarily, but because I fish year-round. And so when I see arbitrary— what I feel is arbitrary proposals like this, this just throws fuel on the fire. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Linda Benken, Director of Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association and a commercial fisherman out of Sitka. A lot of what I was going to say has been covered. I'll try to just add a little bit here. Just emphasize there is no scientific evidence to support a 25, 20, or 7, or anything else cut in production of chum or any other stock.

We expect this board to uphold a science-based process and one that is responsive to public comment. Comment. I think you've seen from the ACs, from what you've heard here, from all the PCs that have been submitted for this, that there is not support for this proposal 156 or for 176 that's been very recently submitted. I, I would remind you that not only is there tremendous economic importance of the hatchery process to the communities, but also, as you've heard, sport, but very importantly food security. I watch people all day long harvesting salmon that are coming back to that Sitka Sound Science Center.

I happen to live across the street from it. I had an office there, was part of keeping the science center alive when Sheldon Jackson College shut down. People rely on that for sport. They rely on it heavily for food. It's very important to the people in our community.

I would also highlight, as others have, that the converging pressures of treaty, Board cuts, climate change, stocks of concern, and rising costs have made the hatchery production, and particularly endsara production, important to the, the fishermen that we represent, and that includes gillnetters, seiners, and trawlers. We do have fishermen who are making up to 90% of their annual earnings at this point from that hatchery production. Anything that hurts any of these hatcheries has a big impact across our community at a lot of levels.

I think most other points have been hit. I will stop there. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Next.

Thank you, Member Wood. I'm Chris Guggenbichler. I'm going to be speaking as the president of SARA at this point. I wrote this down. I don't want to get off track.

But I'd like to talk about our programs and how this proposal specifically would affect us. In addition to our hatcheries at Neets and Burnett, which are largely chum facilities providing cost recovery, brood and gear growth opportunity, we also have Whitman Lake, which is mainly a king and coho facility that some of you visited prior to this meeting. There's a Fred Division hatchery on the Kellogg River on the west side of Prince of Wales that was taken over by a group of concerned citizens from the area. Fred Division pulled out of that facility, so the locals there tried to keep it going. It was a good program.

Unfortunately, they did not have the cost recovery means to pay for that coho project. They approached Sarah. We ultimately acquired this facility in an effort to provide opportunity to the troll fleet. Sarah managers increased survival through best rearing practices, and this 4.5 million coho facility has created substantial benefits to commercial and sport charter users in the region. In addition to the saltwater harvest, a fishery in the Klawock River provides a harvest in the 300,000 coho level to all sport personal use users in the area.

That's accessed through Klawock tribal land.

Both resident and non-resident. We also acquired the Deer Mountain facility just up the hill here. You went by the creek on the way up here. The stream— let's see— the small facility rears king salmon in addition to a cooperative project with the state to rear trout. A kids' fishing derby is held annually at this site as well as in the Kwokwaka'wakw system.

This provides great viewing of king salmon from this iron bridge outside your window. We also operate Crystal Lake Hatchery in Petersburg. This is another Fred Division hatchery. We operate in a release goal of 700,000 king salmon to be released in Blind Slough. We'll be talking about that later.

Also 500,000 kings in the Anita Bay and 600,000 on the west coast of Prince of Wales. We believe we have a responsibility as a regional to provide opportunity to all users throughout our region. We do receive sport fish funding for this Crystal Lake Hatchery. However, Sarah's responsibility and funding for this hatchery is in excess of 1 million pounds of chum salmon.

All these programs are supported by the economy of scale that Sarah has. Unfortunately, our survival rates dropped significantly following the blob, then further with market conditions starting with COVID Our board had to sharpen their pencils, and unfortunately we made some significant cuts. We cut coho production in Neets Bay, and another project on Neck Lake, which was a summer coho project, provided 10,000 coho to the residents on East Prince of Wales. We cut that program. It's gone.

Sarah's run very lean at this point, and any cut to our chum production, even at 7%, will force us to use an ax to any of these King or Coho projects, as we've already used the scalpel. We cannot create further savings without cutting an entire project. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Next.

Give myself a little room here. Susan Doherty, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, better known as Sarah. And start with by answering a couple of questions that the board has asked other people. I did have a chance to look at what a 7% reduction would mean to Sarah. That's 17.5 million fish, which equates to an average survival 3.6 million pounds, which depending on which price you're looking at, if you're looking at historical or the last 2 years, It would range from $1.8 million to $7.6 million to the commercial fisheries.

It would result in anywhere from $500,000 to $2 million in cost recovery for Sarah alone. That's 5 to 17% of the revenue needed for our annual budget. And those are just Sarah's numbers. And our production of chum is less than Nsarah. It's unfortunate that we didn't have time to get more information to the board concerning, um, RC 176 and would respectfully request that we have an opportunity to do that if you are going to consider that RC.

I also want to make sure I say that we are adamantly opposed to 156 and RC 176. Further financial information about all of our programs in Southern Southeast can be found in RC 175.

I also want to reiterate that in 175, we state that Sarah has not made cost recovery in 4 out of the last 5 years with the current production. So it doesn't take a math genius to figure out what a 7% reduction would do if we can't— haven't made it in the last 4 to 5 years. I want to touch on a couple of things that were said by board members in deliberation concerning the sport and charter boat allocation, the 80/20 split that was compromised to 77/33.

Member Svensson, during deliberations, said that his decisions were made based on the economic importance. I think through all the testimony and all the PCs you've received, You've received that information that it would be a huge economic impact across every sector, not just commercial fish— fisherman. Member Wood stated that he didn't write.

That that split just randomly. 25%, 7%, 20%, Those are all random numbers. I, I don't know what they're supposed to mean. They don't have any bearing on any scientific data, anything that's been presented to this board that would get you to that number. So I appreciate Member Wood's statement concerning that, that issue.

Member Carpenter stated that he takes what the ACs say very seriously, their opinion. All but one AC opposed 156. They didn't have the opportunity to oppose 176. And the one AC that did, did speak in favor of this, their borough in PC 011 and the Chilkat Indian Association in PC 82 opposed 156. And lastly, our chairman asked that we resolve this conflict with the sport and charter in our community.

We didn't have a conflict. There was no conflict in 156. There was adamant opposition. And I don't know where RC 176 came from. There was no compromise position that was requested.

So I see RC 176 as creating conflict where there was none in our community. And lastly, I would— Southeast Alaska's pink production is a drop in the bucket to what is raised in other hatcheries in the state. And you guys rejected Proposal 78. In Cordova. I can't fathom how you could reject that proposal yet impose a 20% reduction in Southeast on a production that's 100— I believe we are permitted for 113 million, and it's in the billions in the rest of the state.

So I have a really hard time seeing how we get there.

I'm pretty sure I had something else, but I think that covers most of my points. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Next. Scott, double dipping.

Make it brief. Like wicked brief. Well, I just thought it was important to highlight that you heard from Sarah just now what proposed actions they would have to take to cut. I think it's important to highlight too, for INSRWA, obviously this will be a board discussion, but our most expensive facility is operating in the community of Cake. It's one of our newer ones.

We took it over from the failed previous operator. We've been operating that for quite a few years now. It has a Chum and a Chinook program. The Chinook program will likely be losing that one first. And I did wanna just mention, previously mentioned, but, There is virtually unanimous opposition to this in Southeast, and for the board to take another direction seems inappropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Francis Leach, lifelong Southeast Alaskan avid fly fisherman and occasional commercial fisherman. I want to respond to the question that was raised to the representative from Ketchikan about why is the legislature concerned about the process. I can't speak for the legislature, but I can speak for just about everybody in this room when I say we are concerned about the process.

Protecting our hatchery production is an issue we are all united on. You've heard that so many times. And this is an issue that has had resounding opposition from every sector of user groups in Southeast Alaska. And that rarely happens. And yet we are still— when we talk to board members, We still hear that there are people that are supportive of this proposal.

We are still seeing RC and RC coming in that is still wishing to reduce hatchery production. So this is why we are concerned. This is why we are concerned about process. This is why everyone's lined up here. So I just— that, that I hope answers the question as why folks are concerned about the process.

Thank you. Thank you.

For the record, my name is Paulette Marino. I reside in Sitka and I serve as the 6th Vice President I am the president of Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. I also have been asked and given permission and authority to represent the Alaska Native Intertribal Association on behalf of Delbert Kadaik. Tlingit and Haida Executive Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2505 opposing Proposal 176. Tlingit and Haida opposes 176 to reduce hatchery production of pink and chum salmon by by 25%.

We also oppose RC-176. Both of the organizations which I've been charged to represent at this time— a necessary risk to salmon availability for our food security and Indigenous way of life in rural communities. We are here in charge to protect those. A comment was made earlier that hatcheries are the primary reason why fish are getting smaller. Even if there is evidence of this is true, it's not the only smoking gun.

Increased ocean temperatures affect salmon metabolism, ultimately limiting their ability to grow to a potentially larger size. This is a basic biological fact that's been observed in all fish species. So with that being said, once again, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribe of Alaska and the Alaska Native Intertribal Association, both oppose 176 and RC 179. Good night, and thank you for the men that are standing beside me at this time, Richard Jackson and Kai.

And thank you for the salmon. I won't say who gave it to me, but good night. Thank you. Next.

[Speaker] Mr. Chair, board members, Casey Mapes. Our AC didn't take up action on this proposal, though it's clear we should have. So the new information I wish to present to you today, I will speak on behalf of, as the vice chair of our Yakutat Regional Aquaculture Association, which we began approximately 15 years ago. We've been struggling to get ourselves off of the ground ever since.

We voted as a people of user groups in the Acted area overwhelmingly to impose a 2% enhancement tax on ourselves, and we've been paying it and collecting it ever since with the hopes and dreams of getting our hatchery off of the ground.

What we're— our main goals was the same as everybody else, to increase the financial abilities of our users but more so to spread out some of the impact we're currently having on our existing wild stocks onto things that we've created ourselves instead. Our concern is that if you were to support this proposal, it would cast a very bad light on our hopes and dreams, if not kill it entirely. So there's that. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Don Spiegelmeyer. I am here representing OBIC Foods right now in the capacity of a fleet manager. And if you guys don't know what that is, basically everything to do with the fleet comes through me as far as like moving tenders and buying fish and that sort of stuff. Last year we had 152 fishermen that fished on enhanced fish.

Hatchery fish. I've been contacted in the last 2 days by 87 of them. Everyone that I've talked to is very opposed to this. They wanted me to make sure I got up here and let you guys know this. These are 87— well, it's 152 fishermen, but 87 individual business owners contacted me and said the state is watching you.

This is very, very important. And also, this will have a really massive impact on the terminal harvest area, creating more hardship for the hatcheries. And then on a personal note, I, I'm on the Petersburg AC. And when this came up, we didn't even hesitate. Imagine taking 25% of whatever you hold dear away from you.

We support our hatcheries. And I think it's overwhelming the number of people that you have in front of you that have stated, don't do this.

That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Matt Donahoe for HEA. Thank you for letting us have this moment. The hatcheries produced last year over 35,000 king salmon that were caught in the different gear groups that are not counted by the treaty. Alaska Hatchery produced king salmon are not counted. There's a couple that are, but— Over 5,000 of those went to the sport fishery.

The sport fishery had an allocation of about 39,000 fish. So they got about 6,000 more out of Alaska hatcheries that don't come off the treaty. And I'd also like to put a word in for the Sikisáan Science Center. They've been training aquaculture employees for years now. And if they— they're one of the only two hatcheries in Southeast that produces any pink salmon.

And it's a training program. It's important to keep it going. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Woody Sear, representing myself. I think you've had it hammered home pretty well. That cutting chum and pink results in cuts of coho. So I'm just going to remove— move right on to the coho situation.

So the thing that comes to mind with the AKI fish getting cut, the location that the fishermen fish on these fish is inside Chatham Strait from approximately Patterson Point to Cape Omni. This location is protected waters that in most stormy weather you're still able to fish. There are many anchorages and there are stable buyers. This is a place where extremely rural, limited residents are able to go and fish. These fish, particularly from AKI, arrive late in the season when the price is the highest and when they are the largest.

And as the weather is getting worse and worse and worse, they represent an opportunity for people who have had a difficult season, one last shot to get something to carry them through. I really do support providing opportunity for small hatcheries. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Woody.

We're going to end it with these last 3. Okay. So appreciate it. Good morning. Bill Gass, production manager for Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture.

I want to talk about one piece of this that I don't think has been mentioned. The way this is written.

We back up. I think most people think of a hatchery. The fish come back, you take the eggs, you rear the fish, you release the fish, the fish come back. That's not what we do. We do that on a, on a limited basis.

Some of you were at Whitman Lake the other day. We have chum at Whitman Lake that today are being transported to Kendrick Bay. The eggs were taken at Neets Bay. Our programs are interconnected. If we were going to take a cut in chum, I would beg you to give me a chance to do it in the most responsible and reasonable way.

If you're going to tell me I have to take a hit, I'm going to want to take it on the shoulder. This is aimed straight at my chin. Okay? This doesn't give us a chance to try to filter through and make this any less painful. This is a 7% cut to every permit.

It's the worst possible thing you could do to us.

And if this goes through, I'm where the rubber meets the road. There's gonna be a lot of pain. It won't surprise me if one of the 35 people that work for me doesn't have a job. I'm the guy that's gonna have to call them in and tell them, "You don't have a job." And I'm gonna explain to them why. And I haven't heard a good reason here.

So I could go on, but that's what I wanted to get said. Thank you. Hey, thank you.

Chair Wood, my name is Abby Frederick. For the record, I'm with Silver Bay Seafoods. I'm a 30-year resident of Juneau, and I wanted to reference our opposition to Proposal 156 and PC 456. And we also strongly oppose RC-176. Uh, we respect the Commissioner's comments in RC-90, and we look forward to participating in the RPT process under the direction he has provided.

This is a reasonable approach to support the department in better assessing the wild stock.

The processing sector has been undergoing significant change this last year.

Silver Bay's approach has been to provide stability to harvesters and communities alike. We've been extending markets, finding efficiencies, creating synergies, and increasing value—value that's clearly important to Southeast Alaska. We are proud to be a member of the communities of Ketchikan—Ketchikan now—Sitka, and Craig.

And what we see with this proposal is that it increases instability. And it reduces economic opportunity, which is a pretty unfriendly environment for businesses and communities trying to get by. And it doesn't seem to offer any conservation benefit. The beauty of the hatchery program is that if residents of Fairbanks do not support a hatchery to enhance their local stocks, they don't have to have one. In Southeast, we value this tool, and if there is an issue, we trust that we can work with it through the department.

In the RPT process. I'd like to speak also, if I can, Chairman Wood, on behalf of myself as a resident.

Just no, absolutely not. We don't support this. You've heard a lot of testimony today, and I want to mimic all of that. But as a member who lives in a household that participates in sport, commercial, personal use, and subsistence fishing, I absolutely oppose this proposal. And the RC.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we're gonna—. Was that a yes or no? Sorry, I apologize, I was standing in line. Mixed messages here, Kim. It was mixed.

Make it quick. Well, I was just going to clarify the mixed message by saying that seemed to be a really good message to land on, so thank you, board. All right, now we're going to move on to 157.

Mr. Chair, for the record, Troy Tinnis, area management coordinator for Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 157 would create a terminal harvest area and associated management plan for the hatchery runs to Burnett Inlet. Mr. Chair, any comments?

Jump on it. Thank you. Troy was pretty quick there. So Chris Guggenmichler, president of SARA, and also speaking as a gill netter. This creating this terminal harvest area, uh, would give Sarah some flexibility and being able to extract some fish if we run into some cost recovery issues or that.

And some, uh, it just gives us another tool in the toolbox. It's not something we're going to use a lot. It's just only an anomaly, and when consultation with the department. So it does allow gillnet in this area. One thing that, that helps is there's a There's a pink salmon index stream on the outer regions of it, and we could use a mesh restriction to be able to protect those and still extract some of the chum salmon.

Thank you. Thank you. Next.

Susan Doherty, Sarah. I just want to add that as the general manager, I'm responsible for the cleanup of these sites and If for some reason the cost recovery boat that we have contracted with can't do its job, I have no avenue to get those fish cleaned up. So that is my reason for wanting this, is to do my due diligence to make sure that those fish do not go somewhere where they are not intended to go. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, question from Ms. Carlson-Vandort. So listening to all of that stuff, I mean, if you've got a bunch of fish And you're producing a bunch of fish that you don't have an avenue to clean up. Why are you producing so many fish?

Chairman Weihnacht.

So as been explained previously, our average survivals on chum historically are 2.5%. You heard that, Chris.

Crawfish was, I don't know, something like 16% or something. We had like 0.2, 0.3 during this marine heat wave. We have to release enough fish. We release enough fish to survive at the 2.5% survival. We haven't been there.

The rest are used for cost recovery.

Yeah, our situation at Burnett, the fish ladder— I mean, we could harvest them all through the fish ladder, but it's very slow process.

If we don't have a cost recovery boat, we could open this up for rotational fish fisheries and have the fishermen take them out of the water because it would take us a very long time to get them out of the water through the ladder. Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thanks, Susan.

Next.

Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC. And adding a little bit more to what Susan just shared, there was a discussion at our advisory committee with the geography of Burnett Inlet and how it's very narrow and difficult to prosecute an orderly common property fishery. And the concerns of proximity to wild stocks and the runs in Burland Inlet— they would need to come up with a plan to figure out how to organize the fishermen and also have concerns for the impacts to the wild fish in there. There was a question about cost recovery versus common property fishery. One is easier to control the take, change the lines, more control over the harvest versus having chaotic fishery with various fishermen in there.

There was worries about the intercepts when boats fishing down the line are— sorry.

But the goal here is really just to come up with a plan in case there is an excess of fish. I was in Sika when crawfish happened, and I think people were really surprised and shocked that that was such a major return. And we don't want to have something like that happen and not have a plan in place in case that does happen again. We were in full support of this.

Thank you. Next.

Mr. Chairman, Phil Doherty, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Sanders Association. We're in full support of this proposal. We feel that we need to get this on the books to give the aquaculture association the option to get in there and do either cost recovery or common property fisheries, rotational fisheries. If the numbers of fish move into the inlet and support that. And we need to be ready to move fast.

There's been talks about, well, where all these hatchery fish go if they're not harvested. We need to get in there and catch them. We need to let Sarah have the tools to do that. We need to give the Fish and Game Department the authority to get in there and harvest these fish. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Tom Miners here, Southeast St. Andrews. Uh, through the chair, to your question, Madam Chair, uh, the structure of this particular spot— what happens is, uh, in Burnett Inlet currently, the majority of the fish there— actually, the entirety of the fish there are either go up the ladder to the hatchery, or they're caught by a cost recovery boat, which is generally one or two boats, and they're catching those fish to help pay for the hatchery. And we need this tool in the event that there's a lot of fish and either the, the 1 or 2 cost recovery boats can't keep up and they need to bring in the fleet, or we've caught enough fish and there's excess fish to allow that, you know, the fleet opportunity to catch these fish. So that's why we need this. Thanks.

Thank you. Woody.

Woody Sears. So there is a question kind of about why you might not have a cost recovery boat, but why there might be interest in a common property opportunity and people fishing that. And that's pricing. I have a sharp pencil a lot of the time when I'm considering which different fishery I can participate in. And if, if you have a processor who's trying to contract you to catch some fish and the price that they're offering you to go catch these cost recovery fish doesn't work for you, the price that you would get catching these fish in a common property fishery is likely to be good enough that it's worth your time to go catch them.

I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Move on to 158.

Mr. Chair, um, Torontinas for the record. Proposal 158 would modify the boundaries of the Hidden Falls Terminal Harvest Area and Hidden Falls Special Harvest Area in regulation to align with what is currently open through emergency order. I'd like to note The department submitted a map that clearly shows this in RC 165. This map should have been included in staff comments in RC 2, but was omitted.

Thank you. Comment?

Scott Wagner, for the record, just wanted to again reiterate that this is one of our THAs, and our board is in support of Fish and Game's proposal.

Thank you. Next.

Phil Doherty, Executive Director of Southeast St. Ann's. We look at this proposal as largely bookkeeping. It's not going to change the actions within the terminal harbor stay area around Hidden Falls. It just better defines the lines so that purse seine fishermen who are fishing there know where they are. So we have no problem with this proposal at all, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, we are— got 10 more to go here. It's getting close to lunch, so let's keep it brisk. And note that on this there's an RC-162 that goes along with 159.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Jeff Rice. I am the sport fish area management biologist for the Petersburg Wrangle area. Proposal 159.

This proposal would modify the Wrangell Narrows Blind Slough Terminal Harvest Area Management Plan by changing sport fish bag possession and size limits, decreasing the length of the time the management plan is in effect, and establishing a refuge area closed to king salmon fishing at all abundance levels. Mr. Chair, thank you. Would you also read RC-162?

Oh yeah, it's long. But people, if you've read it, please comment on it up when you come up.

Thank you, Member Wood. Chris Guggenmichler, sir, President. I and staff, we attended an AC meeting in Petersburg last year. It was very well attended. You could tell the importance of this fishery to those residents, those sport residents.

It's hard to fill a room unless you're talking about moose in our AC meetings. But we did it there. So, um, this is a compromise between everybody. If we don't get our eggs for our brood, we don't— we don't have to figure out how to share them. So we worked with the Sport Fish Department, and we're really happy to come to a conclusion that protects the brood and allows a lot of opportunity for the fishermen in excess of that.

Thank you. Great. Yeah, thank you.

All right, any other comments on this one?

Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC. I just want to also reinforce how important this fishing opportunity is to the community of Petersburg and just wanted to express gratitude for the chair working with the department to work out all the efforts and also working with Sarah in the city of Wrangell. And we unanimously support what was put together. So grateful everybody could come to a compromise and find a way to make it all work. All right.

Thank you. Any other comments on 159? Forest. Forest Brady speaking for Southeast Alaska Guides Organization. We have a board member that lives in Petersburg, and of the proposals that dealt with the blind slope, he thought this was the best compromise.

159 Support. And he's been a longtime operator there. So just to add to the conversation. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Move on to 160.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Proposal 160. This proposal would modify the Wrangell-Narrows Blind Slough Terminal Harvest Area Management Plan by changing sport fish bag possession and size limits, increasing the length of time for the management plan is in effect, and establishing a refuge where sport fish for king salmon is closed at all abundance levels. Mr.

Chair. Great. Any comments on 160? Moving on to 161.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Proposal 161. This proposal would modify the Wrangell Narrows Blind Slough Terminal Harvest Area Salmon Management Plan by reducing the bag and possession limit for nonresident anglers and establishing annual limits for both residents and nonresident anglers. Mr.

Chair. Any comments? Okay, we'll move on to 162.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Proposal 162. This proposal would modify 5 AAC 47.023 H1(c) by reducing the bag and possession limit from 2 king salmon over 28 inches and 2 king salmon under 28 inches to 2 king salmon any size between January 1st and May 31st. And retention would be prohibited for the remainder of the year outside of the time when the Wrangell Narrows Blind Slough Terminal Harvest Area Salmon Management Plan is in effect.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Comments on 162?

Susan Doherty. I just want to say that this has been rolled into the compromise language in 162. Thank you.

Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC, also in alignment with Susan, and that was all worked out with the RC. Great, thanks a lot. Go ahead. Yeah, Chris, good to be— I just draw your attention to, uh, RC 163.

We're the full support for 162 and 163. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. All right.

163. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Proposal 163. This proposal would apply king salmon nonresident annual limits established by the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan, 5AAC 47.055, to the Wrangell Narrows Blind Slough terminal harvest area.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Comments on 163.

We were in unanimous— Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC. We were in unanimous support of this.

Concerned with exponential growth in guide and nonresident fishing. This place has become a hotspot for people taking fish and should be capped. For sport fish for them, for those that are not subsistence.

Thank you. Okay. 164. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record, I'm Dan Teske. I'm the Juneau Area Management Biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 164 would establish a priority for resident anglers through the use of higher bag and possession limits in the sport fishery harvest areas near Juneau. When the fishery is open with a resident bag limit of 1 fish, retention would be prohibited by non-residents. When the resident bag limit is 2 fish, non-residents would have a bag limit of 1 fish.

And when the resident bag limit is greater than 2 fish, non-residents would have a limit of 2. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Comments on 164?

Seeing none, we'll go to 165.

For the record, my name is Scott Forbes. I'm the Juneau area management biologist for the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 165. This would shift weekly commercial salmon drift gillnet fishery fishing periods from a Sunday to a Monday start. Mr.

Chair, any comment? Seeing— oh yeah, Heather. Heather Bauscher, Petersburg AC. We were opposed to this 10 to 1. I guess lots of folks have different opinions on the days, but they have gone over this a bunch of times before and didn't want to make another fight, so they are just opposed to leave it the way it is.

Thank you. Chris Guggenmichler, president of the Gilland Association, at this point.

We were opposed to this as well. There was some concern on whether or not the department would have the ability to get information during the week to be able to manage our fishery correctly by the weekend. So, and I think that was Rangelisi's position as well. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, move on to 166. Proposal 166. This would authorize the department to use emergency order authority to allow commercial salmon drift gillnet fishers in District 11 to use deeper nets during the directed coho salmon management period. Mr. Chair.

Any comments on 166? Here he comes. Uh, our executive director put it on the record, uh, during public testimony that we pulled support for this. Um, I don't know the RC number. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to 167. Mr. Chair, Beau Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist, Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 167 would allow a purse seine permit holder to add an additional 50 fathoms of length to their nets, increasing fishing efficiency for an individual purse seine vessel.

Comments? Mr. Chairman, Phil Doherty with Southeast Seiners Association. We oppose this proposal. The seiners are pretty efficient with the gear. That they have today.

That's one reason. The second reason is new gear, longer nets would go against the, the treaty, and our District 104 fishery is part of the treaty. Thank you.

Okay, any other comments?

Last one, 168. Mr. Chair, Bo Marath. Proposal 168 would eliminate the terminal harvest area exemption from existing regulations the board adopted in 2018 that do not allow for a person to use an aircraft to direct commercial salmon fishing operations 1 hour before, during, and 1 hour after a commercial purse seine period.

Comments?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, my name is Billy Wallendorf. I'm here to oppose Proposal 168. The state of Alaska does not control any airspace. I can fly anywhere, anytime.

So the loophole argument states that a spotter plane leaves a THA where it is legal to spot while boats are actively fishing. Fly into a non-THA and spot for vessels is all rumor and conjecture. Flying into— flying in non-THA areas during active fishing has been banned since 2018, and to my knowledge, no, no pilots have been cited with any spotting violations. Therefore, there is no reason not to leave the status quo. There are only 2 active spotters in all Southeast Alaska.

Both of us fly streams and effort surveys for the fishing game. Counting streams for escapement and boats for effort, and looking for opportunities for the entire fleet. It would be worth the board's time to speak with area biologists about the role we play in managing the fishery day to day and how hard it is to find qualified pilots willing and able to do this job. If Proposal 168 passes, I would have to rethink my role in Southeast Alaska. Lastly, eliminating our presence in THAs is harmful to the fleet in general due to the fact that we have all been a part of countless medevacs and acts of first response.

Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ryan Kapp, and I fish salmon in Southeast Alaska on a purse seine boat. I've employed spotter pilots for a couple of seasons. I haven't employed spotter pilots for a couple of seasons. I don't think they get that big of advantage. A lot of times it's TMI.

They're useful the day before, the day after. As far as the day of, Southeast is an awfully big area, so if he's seeing one fish in a spot, largely they're coming through on a pulse of a tide. And if I cut and run because my pilot's telling me to run, I'm chasing and it's really likely they're not going to be there anyway. I think there might be some enforceability issues, and personally I'd like to see our enforcement capabilities for people that are fudging lines or robbing creeks and stuff like that, not chasing after somebody who may or may not have made a circle or whatever on a flight path. And there's planes all over southeast for ecotourism and running people to lodges and stuff like that.

And I think that could generate some confusion if you're in one of those flight paths when you're fishing too. So I just think there's going to be some issues with that regard. So I don't have a problem with pilots. Thank you. Thank you.

Tom Miners, Southeast St. Louis Association. We did not take a position on this proposal, and speaking just for myself, I do know that it's very important for the department to have good pilots in their stable, and they've had a hard time finding good pilots. And so having something for those guys to do in addition to working for those guys working for the department, maybe not the worst thing in the world. That's all I'm going to say. Thanks.

Woody Seer, SITKA AC. We unanimously supported this proposal. Our SANE rep on our committee relayed to us that this was a loophole that got left out when previous regulation was made. Um, you know, he says when Sitka Sound is closed, spotter planes go over Deep Inlet, Sitka Sound, read out Middle Island. This would close up Deep Inlet, and you really— as opposed to having the spotter planes being able to go around and look at, look at what's going on where in that way.

So that's what I want to relay. Thank you. Thank you. Next.

Susan Doherty, General Manager, Sarah. I just want to make sure the board's intent is well documented should you decide to pass this proposal. Currently, we use pilots in our terminal harvest areas to look for fish for us, to tell the processor who has our contract whether or not it makes sense for them to go catch them. I also use them to make sure that whoever had the contract has held up their end of the bargain and has mopped up those fish. So I have been assured that if you were to pass this, it would not affect that ability.

But I just want to make sure that it doesn't, because that is one of my only means to make sure that I do my job of cleaning up the fish and also not wasting valuable time fishing when there's no fish. Thank you.

Hello, Don Spiegelmeier, OVIC Foods. We employ Airplane. He does multitudes of things for us, picking up, picking up broken humans,.

Bringing up parts and pieces and whatnot that break almost on every, every opening. I fly with him on openings. We don't communicate. We can't communicate with anybody. But what we do is we communicate with the department.

The department— Doug, who's our pilot— the department gets lots of information from, from him. He's a seasoned pilot, been around over 35 years. He knows and he knows and reports to the department things that maybe their pilot doesn't see at a different time. Obviously, it's a, it's a part of his livelihood, but as far as I know, there's no way to control airspace, so, you know, he can still fly whenever he wants. So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Mitch Eide. I've been a seigneur in Southeast for 40 years. I've had pilots, not very many, not for very long. They kind of confuse me.

I think that there may be a loophole here, and I've seen some of these planes flying over when maybe they shouldn't be, but the result is not enough to take action. There just isn't really an issue here. That's really all I got. I just want to say that there's no reason why these guys shouldn't be able to make a living. Thank you.

Thank you. Last one.

Curt Whitehead, Secretary of the East POW/AC. After further consultation, I'd like to direct your attention to RC 117, where we withdraw our support for Prop 168.

All right. Done. Woo! Well done, Chairwoman. I'll pass the gavel back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Appreciate your work there. Thanks for everybody who engaged in that committee. I'm going to check and see if there's substitute language being worked on. Just a second, then I'll make an announcement on deliberations.

All right, well, let's shoot to come back on the record at about 2:00 PM today, and we will begin deliberations on Committee of the Whole Group 5.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] All right, welcome back, everybody. The time is 2:17, again, Friday, February 7th. We're going to go ahead and begin deliberations on Committee of the Whole group.

Group 5 includes once again Southeast Alaska and Yakutat area subsistence, commercial, personal use, and sport salmon and trout enhancement and terminal harvest areas. We are going to take up board deliberations on the two action plans first. Hughes-Smith Lake sockeye salmon action plan and the northern Southeast outside chum salmon action plan. And then we'll move into proposals beginning with proposal number 135. So at this time, we'll go ahead and begin with discussion of Hughes-Smith Lake sockeye salmon action plan.

Staff.

Madam Chair, one second. We were ready for the northern southeast, so we'll just have a switch at staff. Yeah, I'm following it in the order on the roadmap. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Beau Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist, Commercial Fisheries.

Procedural question, Madam Chair. Would you like me to read through the different options here that are presented on the screen as we, as we dive into this? Yeah, I think so. For this one in particular, I think I'd like you to go through the options for Action 1, and then I'll ask if there's any board questions. We'll go through the options for Action 2, we will do board questions and then the actions and so on and so forth.

For the next one, I think we are going to take them up and deliberate them in separate motions, but for this one, I think unless members want to do otherwise, we can probably bundle the motion, but I want you to provide the opportunity for members to ask questions about the various options for each action. Does that make sense? Very good, Madam Chair. Great, thank you. Action 1 for the Hugh Smith Lake sockeye action plan for commercial fisheries.

Option A, use EO, would be no formal action plan. The department would use EO authority to manage commercial fisheries based on overall salmon abundance. Management actions to reduce the harvest of Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon would be implemented during stat weeks 29 through 33 in the District 1 purse seine and drift gillnet fisheries, and they could include area restrictions, Specific actions would depend on in-season assessments of the run strength of Hu Smith sockeye, just general observations of sockeye and pink salmon abundance and harvest, and then expected or realized levels of effort. That's Option A for commercial fisheries.

Commercial fisheries Option B would be basically a resurrection of the original 2003 Hu Smith action plan. We'd use EO authority to implement the 2003 action plan. And that looks like, if you recall from the figures, based on the daily Hu Smith sockeye weir counts, if projections of the cumulative Hu Smith sockeye salmon weir count in stat weeks 29 and 30 fall below the lower bound of the escapement goal range, the department would close basically a box around the mouth of Quadra Inlet that includes a line from Quadra Point to Slate Island Light to Black Rock Light to a point on the mainland shore. If the projection throughout the season continues to fall below the lower end of the escapement goal, that closure expands north and south of the mouth of Quadra to Black Island Light— or Black Island, excuse me— south to Black Rock Light, and then south to Foggy Point Light. At the same time, the drift gillnet fishery in Section 1B would also lose a nautical mile of shoreline south of Foggy Point, and that would go into effect from Stat Week 31 through 33.

So for Option C in the commercial fisheries, we would take the largest area restriction from Option B, implement that in Stat Week 29 and 30 if the in-season projection is still below the lower end of the goal. That area would expand then and close basically a triangle portion that remained open from the original closure. And then what those look like— excuse me, I'll pause there unless you would like to see a map of those figures or those descriptions. Sure.

So this is Option B.

The first closure, the Statwick 2930 closure, you have— Quadra Point to Slate Island to Black Rock Light.

Point on the mainland, just your basic box around the mouth of Quadra. If you're a Huu Smith sockeye, you've got to go through that area to get to Huu Smith Lake. Stat Week 31, if the projection is still below the lower end of the goal, we extend north to Black Island, south to Black Rock Light, south to Foggy Point Light, simultaneously closing this portion of the drift gillnet fishery. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Option C is— excuse me, I'm sorry, is that one.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so would you say that Option B is pretty much the way you're managing the fishery right now? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, Option B has been implemented from 2019 through 2024. And does that still give you the ability within this option to— do you have enough flexibility to be able to execute these specifically when the pink salmon show up?

Do you have the ability to execute that fishery?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. The District 1 fishery, you know, is a major driver regionally. If you're looking at the map, you know, you still have this area from Coney Island to Alva to Sykes that are open. What you would do— what happens when this, this closure is implemented is you just take a 6-boat lineup and make it 12, 15. 20.

So there is still opportunity in this area, but it's restricted. Thank you.

Um, Mr. Swenson, which one of those proposals gives you the most flexibility in managing it?

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, Option A.

Thank you.

My question is, you know, I'm looking at Figure 3 in the action plan, the annual sockeye salmon escapement like at Hugh Smith Lake, 1980 to 2023. I see that area in there where there was a previous stock of concern, and which I understand you used the management measures in Option B to try and address the issue. Is that correct? So now we're— we've not met escapement goals for Hue Lake for— since 2018. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

You said that you've been taking Option B management measures since 2019. So for the last 5 years, and it looks like it's going from bad to worse. So I'm wondering if going forward, if it's your opinion that Option B is appropriate considering that that hasn't seemed to have much of an effect. Effect, a positive effect, in terms of being able to meet escapement goals, in your opinion? Yeah, Madam Chair, great question.

We've gone, you know, at this table we've gone round and round on that. Um, I would, you know, urge you to take yourself back to Mr. Piston's presentation where he kind of pointed out the effects of the marine heat wave through those years, and then the Hugh Smith adults that returned, you know, were double whammied with a significant drought in 2018-19. So our smolt counts were— you'd need 100% survival on the outmigrating smolts to reach the escapement goal. The eternal optimist in me is encouraged by the recent increase in the smolt counts, and I think Option B, given those smolt counts, is enough. Thank you.

Any other board discussion with respect to Action 1 options? Okay, let's move on.

Madam Chair, Action Item Number 2 deals with the subsistence fishery. Only one option was presented, which is status quo that maintains the current subsistence fishery possession limit of 12 sockeye per household with no annual limit. The subsistence harvest represents a very small percentage of the Hoo Smith sockeye harvest and should be continued. Any board questions with respect to action item number 2 relative to subsistence fishery? Okay, let's talk about action item number 3, please.

Action item number 3, the sport fishery. Two options were presented. Option A is status quo. Option B, the department could use EO authority to close sport fishing for sockeye salmon at Hugh Smith Lake and then the saltwater areas in the Sockeye Creek estuary. Any board questions?

Mr. Carpenter, does the department have a preferred option?

And if you could speak to that. Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I'm Kelly Ruppert, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Our preferred option is status quo. The harvest of sockeye at Hughesmith Lake is presumed very low or zero. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Hearing none, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move the Hugh Smith Lake Sockeye Action Plan as follows. On action item number 1, option B. Action item number 2, option A.

Action item number 3, Option A.

Second. Is there any board discussion with respect to the motion? I'm going to be supportive of the motion. I think that makes sense. I would like to obviously keep a close eye on what's happening and the effects, or lack thereof hopefully, on the commercial fleet on Hughes-Mississaki.

I'm comfortable with that at this point. Point, but I assume we will be back, hopefully we will not be back here and we will be talking about delisting in 3 years, but in the event that we are not, I think that other more restrictive options should definitely be under consideration. Mr. Chamberlain and then Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I was leaning slightly towards a more conservative approach, but given the department's comments, I will be a soft yes.

But a very soft yes. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm listening to how the department's been managing it and what they're most comfortable with. I'm inclined to go with their regulations and I would— or with their, their suggestions. And I'm going to— I'm in favor of what's before us.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll also be supportive of the motion. I think the department has demonstrated that subsistence and sport fisheries there's, there's no reason to opt for anything other than status quo.

The harvest is fairly small and that Option B is a management tool that the department has been utilizing. And I think that continued uptick in smolt production in Hughes-Smith Lake will hopefully provide better returns. And if there's nothing else, I'd call the question. Question's been called. Any errors and omissions with respect to this?

Mr. Payton? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Dr. Rita?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll on the motion, please. On the action plan for Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon, the board's selecting Action 1, Option B, and Option A for Actions 2 and 3. Svenson?

Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Godfrey? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. So let's talk about hopefully what we'll be discussing here sooner than later, and that's the, uh, the criteria for delisting. So if you will walk us through the department's proposed delisting criteria for Hughes-Smith Lake sockeye, please.

Madam Chair, for the record, Troy Tinas, Area Management Coordinator for Comfish. I apologize, we don't have a slide for this, but I'll read through the conditions. So the conditions for reducing management restrictions or delisting a stock of concern. If the number one, if the lower bound of the OEG range is met or exceeded in 3 consecutive years or is met in 4, 4 out of 6 consecutive years, the department may recommend removing the stock of concern designation for the Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon run at the first Southeastern Yakutat Board meeting after that this condition is met. Option 2, management measures could be relaxed in specific areas or during specific time periods if updated stock composition harvest, harvest data indicate areas and/or times where and when restrictions are no longer needed to ensure the OEG is met.

Option 3, in the event the lower bound of the OEG range is met or exceeded in 2 consecutive years, management restrictions may be relaxed or set aside. Madam Chair. Thank you. Quick question for you. So this one has an OIG.

Was that OIG.

OEG set in 2003 by the board?

Madam Chair, that is correct. And has it— and it has not been changed, so that you have been managing to that OEG since then? That is correct. Do you typically manage to the lower, midpoint, or where in that OEG range are you at? When we are enacting the action plan, it is based on trying to make sure we are on pace to reach at least the lower bound of the escapable range.

Thank you. Any more discussion with respect to the delisting criteria?

So I've got a comment on this again. I— this is similar to the comment that I made, I think, in the last action plan that we consider for the Taku and the King Salmon Rivers. And I'll probably make a similar comment with respect to the next one that we consider here in a minute. But the OEG— I mean, the delisting criteria are always slightly different. And, and back to my previous comments with the, with King Salmon action plans.

For me, the first bullet, i.e., number 1, where the 3 consecutive years are met or 4 out of 6 consecutive years are met, is really the target. So I will just state on the record that I am not comfortable with relaxing management measures until that happens, and that that should always be the department's primary goal is getting getting that relative consistency with the escapements, meeting escapements before we start relaxing or taking other management measures to provide additional opportunity on these stocks until they are officially delisted. That's my soapbox rant. I'll probably say it again, but I noticed that there's other things in the next one that are again inconsistent after that first bullet. And so I want to make it clear that it is my goal or what I think is important that that first one be met and then discussion about other actions can come after that or within that space with the board.

But I wouldn't want to see things being lifted, lightened until we meet that initial criteria. And I'm looking for consistency in the delisting criteria going forward. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the board adopt conditions for reducing management restrictions or delisting of stock of concern for the Hugh Smith Lake sockeye action plan to include point 1, 2, and 3, with an emphasis on number 1. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Is the intent clear? Okay, hearing no objection, so moved. Okay, I think that concludes what the part— the guidance the department needs with respect to that action plan. Let's go ahead and move on to Northern Southeast outside CHUM.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Anthony Wallach, the SICA Assistant Area Management Biologist for Commercial Fisheries. And as we go through the action plan alternatives here, I will show them as written in the Northern Southeast Outside Chum Salmon Stock Status and Action Plan found in RC5.

Action 1 involves the commercial fisheries, and this has a focus on the purse seine fisheries in sections 13(a) and (b). The preferred management approach is to continue to utilize the department's emergency order authority to manage these persene fisheries based on overall salmon abundance. Management actions would occur from statistical week 27 through 34, and specific time and area restrictions would depend on in-season assessments of the summer-run chum returning to the individual NSEO index streams. These actions would focus on the areas near the chum salmon index streams, and those areas are shown in RC5, page 24, figure 2. Restrictions would not be implemented in Sitka Sound due to the high number of hatchery-produced chum salmon and the absence of the NSCO summer-run chum salmon index streams.

In West Crawfish Inlet, hatchery cost recovery common property purse seine openings would continue, and fishery boundary would be chosen to conserve the wild summer-run chum salmon returning to the inlet. This approach acknowledges the wide geographic distribution of the subregion, the variation in productivities between the individual streams, and maintains management flexibility. Madam Chair, thank you. Is there any questions associated with this? Management action.

So I think for, for this plan in particular, I'd like to do a motion on each of the actions and the alternatives. So, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the board adopt the Northern Southeast Outside CHUM action plan specific to Action 1, commercial fisheries, Option A. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved. Action number 2.

Madam Chair, action number 2 involves the subsistence fishery. This has one option with no recommended restrictions, and the, and the goal is to maintain subsistence opportunity within the subregion. Madam Chair, any questions? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Move the board adopt the Northern Southeast Outside Chum Action Plan specific to Action Number 2, subsistence fishery, with Option A. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved. Action Item Number 3. Madam Chair, action number 3 involves the sport fishery, and this has one option. Option A is for status quo. There are no recommended restrictions.

However, the department does retain its emergency order authority to reduce sport harvest of NSCO summer-run chum by implementing closures in season if needed. For specific areas. Madam Chair, are there any questions with respect to the sport fish option? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Move the board adopt the North— Northern Southeast Outside Chum Action Plan, respective to action item number 3, sport fishery option A. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so moved. Which brings us to action number 4.

Madam Chair, action number 4 involves the Crawfish Inlet hatchery releases, and the objective is to reduce straying impacts for the northern southeast outside wild stocks and incidental harvests of the wild summer-run chum.

This action has 3 options. Option A is status quo. Option B would be to reduce the permitted maximum release of summer release of chum salmon in Crawfish Inlet by up to 25%. And Option C would prohibit the release of chum salmon fry at the Crawfish Inlet release site. Madam Chair, are there any board questions related to action item number 4?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the board adopt the Northern Southeast Outside Chum Action Plan specific to Crawfish Inlet Hatchery Leashes, which is action number 4, option A. Second. For discussion on the motion, Mr. Chamberlain.

So I won't be able to support Option A. As it stands, the wild— the wild run of that stream stands a substantial chance of being entirely replaced, if not already. And the department's hatchery or genetic genetics policy clearly states you have to protect the wild run of this, of the salmon. And on that, so for the sake of the wild run, I will be not— I will not be supporting this.

Commissioner. Yeah, just for the record, I have put in RC 90 what I plan to do with respect to the Crawfish Inlet using my authority as a commissioner. So I plan to.

That, I guess, regardless of what action you're taking here, I'm going to address this issue under my authority to deal with what I see as a conservation issue at Crawfish Inlet.

And just for the sake of the record and the discussion today, could you please remind board members specifically what those actions will be? I would. Um, oh, let me read my entire statement or just the actions? Just the actions, I think. Okay.

The department recognizes that straying of hatchery-produced chum salmon in Southeast Alaska has impacted the ability to assess the status of wild chum salmon returns in some areas. We also recognize that research about hatchery and wild chum salmon interactions is ongoing and that the impacts of these interactions is not definitive at this time. However, the presence of hatchery chum salmon, which were part of a stock that is not meeting sustainable escapement goals, has resulted in a stock of concern listing and the development of an action plan to ensure that the wild chum salmon stock of concern are recovered and removed as a stock of concern. The interaction between hatchery chum salmon and wild chum salmon is not definitively known to be the cause of wild chum salmon decline production levels, but action to reduce the presence of hatchery chum in the Crawfish Inlet area, in my opinion, is appropriate in combination with an increased sampling in this area by NSRAA A reduction in releases at Crawfish Inlet will help us better assess and understand the impacts to wild chum salmon in this area. Therefore, I am taking the following actions under the authority of me as commissioner to address hatchery impacts of wild chum salmon stocks of concern.

Number 1, recognizing that eggs have already been taken and incubated, marked and released, was approved in the 2024 Sawmill Creek Hatchery Annual Management Plan prior to the designation of the stock of concern. I'll approve the current FTP application for this year's fry release at Crawfish Inlet. Based on discussions with hatchery operators, fry releases are estimated to be 830,000 fry below the 2024 levels. Starting in fall 2025, I'll reduce the fish transport permit permitted chum salmon egg take for release at Crawfish Inlet by 25% under the Sawmill Creek Hatchery permit— hatchery PNP permit— from 30 million eggs to 22.5 million eggs. This reduction will be evaluated at the April 2025 Regional Planning Team meeting, and their comments on how this reduction will impact hatchery operator cost recovery and allocation within gear groups will be sent to me prior to the FTP application review.

I will consider increasing chum salmon egg take by 7.5 million for release at Deep Inlet on the Sawmill Creek Hatchery permit or release at Bear Cove on the Mendivee Creek Hatchery permit pending commissioners' review and approval of a plan that demonstrates that any increased releases will not impact the stocks of concern. That is, if it cannot be demonstrated that the increased releases at these sites will not impact the identified stocks of concern, I will not permit them. Finally, and most importantly, I'm directing the Joint Southeast RPT to conduct a review of chum salmon release strategies, release numbers, release locations, and report to the commissioner by December 31st, 2025, their findings and recommendations regarding what is working well, what is not working well, impacts on wild chum, wild salmon stocks, and the potential improvements to the hatch salmon fishery enhancement program in Southeast Alaska. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, for putting that on the record. One of the reasons that I chose Option A for action item number 4 was specifically because of the language that you put in RC-90. And I think you've demonstrated to the public that what your intentions are.

I think that there is public buy-in to this. I think this is a very isolated incidence in Southeast Alaska. I don't think that the action plan is necessarily reflected just by Crawfish Inlet. And so I'm not sure that anything else other than Option B needs to take place at this time. I think that there's management decisions moving forward in regards to how the troll and seine fisheries are executed in there surrounding the idea of cost recovery to help alleviate the problem in crawfish.

And I also think that there's a statutory process that's in place that has public participation specific to the RPT. And as you suggested as well, you've basically charged your staff with making sure that the review of these takes place with the public and the hatchery operators this year. And so I'm very comfortable with that. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, Commissioner.

So on your first bullet, you said starting in fall 2025, you're going to reduce The FTP permitted chum salmon take by 25% under Sawmill Creek Hatchery PNP.

But the next sentence says that this reduction will be evaluated at the April 2025 RPT meeting. So the evaluation is going to occur before the take or the permit change. So what happens if the RPT process says no, no, no, we can't accommodate that? Will you or will you not reduce that take by 25% in the fall? Yeah, I understand the timing issue.

My intention is to reduce it by 25%. And what I'm asking them to do is report to me and how that impacts their operations so that I understand the impact of that in terms of where they're going to release fish. And my concern is that they say, well, that we just can't stand that impact, whether or not that reduction will be made or not. Because it would be my— I'm interested in what the impacts of that. I'm willing to consider the latitude, but I want to ensure that that reduction occurs irrespective.

That's my intention. Okay. My next question for you is with respect to the second bullet about increasing the chum take by 7.5 for deep inlet. What is the percent increase over the current, if any? There would be no increase because under bullet number 2, it goes down by 7.5 million.

So I'm giving the opportunity to put that into a different location, but only if it's not impacting the stocks of concern. How is the Deep Inlet— I mean, I'm— is that— that's currently not a release site, correct? Um, yes, it is. It is? Yes.

Has there been straying associated with that? That's what I'm going to be looking at very carefully, as to whether there's straying in that site. And if there's additional straying that's affecting the wild stocks of concern, I won't permit it. Is there any— has there been any monitoring or surveying of that site to determine whether or not there has been straying to date from there?

Madam Chair, yes, we've done a lot of straying work there. And, you know, there's been existing release sites at Deep Inlet and Sitka Sound, you know, for a long time. And we, prior to the crawfish release, we had sampled the whole subregion multiple times, and the overall estimates of stray proportions in our index was very low. There was no concerns with those releases. So I don't anticipate this would change that.

And I think we have at least 4 years where we estimated the entire subregion index with those release sites already in play. Okay, I was just kind of curious because I was looking at RC-107, which I had asked the department to prepare for me, and I didn't see Deep Creek in that table anywhere. I did, however, certainly see some stuff going on at Crawfish, especially beginning in 2018, where you see the numbers shoot up from single-digit 1, 2%, 0% up to 62, 99, 83, 94, 93% in subsequent years. So I'm willing to give the commissioner the latitude to manage this with— in conjunction with the RPT, very reluctantly, because these are very concerning numbers. Lacking that statement, Commissioner, I would be voting against Option A and for Option B.

Let me just add that the bar to have any releases at these sites has been raised now that you've identified a stock of concern. So, you know, in the past we didn't have these stocks of concern, so we weren't looking at, at that is an issue. Now that we've identified these are stocks of concern and we've identified that our hatchery releases are impacting them, the bar of approving them is going up. And for Crawfish Inlet, that was— and correct me if I'm wrong here— that was previously an index stream, correct?

I didn't hear the question. Was West Crawfish previously an index stream? Was crawfish. Madam Chair, that's correct. That's the stream we removed from the index.

Right. What is the fate of that now? I mean, all things considered, that's really what drove this issue, I think. And so, you know, at this point, is it the department's intention to keep that as off of the index stream list, or is it to be considered in terms of monitoring and measuring? Madam Chair, we do.

I've talked to NSRA and Our plan moving forward is to continue with the sampling they've been doing over a period of time, and I'll probably work with them to make a few little changes. But I think we'll be able to develop an index that we can do the same thing year after year to be able to track changes in the wild abundance at West Crawfish through time. We certainly won't ignore the stream, and our managers will still be managing the stock to try to, you know, ensure they're protecting the wild stock. And, and with their sampling program, I think.

Work to make sure that while it won't be part of the current index because it'll be kind of a different measurement, we'll be able to track that system and its trends over the next— well, through time and see, see how it compares to the rest of the Chum Index. Yeah, so we're going to reduce it and it's out of the index stream. That was already decided, which is— it's hard to put it back in right now, but I have no intention of losing that stream as a metric of whether or not straying is occurring in that area. So we've worked with NSRA. Agreed that they're going to continue to monitor that stream and stray rates into it.

And if the stray rates are continuing at a high level, even with the 25% reduction, we'll go down lower or possibly end that in that crawfish inlet. That's going to be one of the key index sites that we look at for that. Thank you. And I'll get— I'll start here. I'll get off.

But certainly I'm encouraged to hear that it's your intent. But I would also say, just for the record, that it's certainly my intent as a member of this board for that to occur as well. All right, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. And a question for the department.

I've heard several times, you know, we want to get the number low. What's, what's an acceptable stray rate? And there was a reference to the site where the, the hatchery or where the allocation will be increased. And what are the existing— what were the most recent stray rates for the stream surrounding those? In terms of specific percentages.

So first, what's acceptable in West Crawfish and then the numbers on the surrounding stocks? Thank you.

I guess that's a difficult question. I, you know, we had— clearly it was unacceptable to me as commissioner to see that we were going to remove a stream because of high stray rates into it. I haven't really had a chance to sit down and talk to staff. What is that unacceptable measure, that bar is. I think hopefully through this RPT review process that we're getting back, we're going to find out some recommendations and to establish what those unacceptable rates are.

But certainly when I get down to number 3, I'm not going to repeat that problem by removing index streams at either Bear Creek or Mendevie Creek, those with those permits, by increasing production there. The net outcome of that is to basically result in another removal of a stream from the index. That's not acceptable. So I guess the bottom line is we're going to take a good close look over the next 12 months as part of this review process to figure out whether the hatchery program is impacting our wild chum stocks of concern that you guys have identified as stocks of concern. And if we need to make changes, we're going to make those changes as part of the recommendations through the process.

That— and there, therein lies an issue for me. I have— I would much rather have an objective goal to meet as far as reduction in those, because especially when you're seeing numbers as high as 90%, you know, even 50% stray rate leads to considerable interaction between wild and native, native chump stocks. And I, we, you know, when we're looking at the at the possibility of a wild stock being replaced by a non-native stock or a hatchery stock, there's a considerable chance that that stock just gets eliminated or blended into a melting pot genetically. And I'd like to know how that complies with the department's genetics finfish policy. Yeah, I understand what you're looking for.

You're looking for specific metrics and I'm trying to get those metrics to define over time. And I think working with the hatchery operators, we're going to get there. But, you know, oftentimes we make recommendations as part of these action plans that we don't know what the net effect of a closure in an area is going to be in terms of saving fish into, into that specific index stream. We try it or we're making our best attempt to recover these stocks. In this case, I'm making a measurable difference.

I don't know what— maybe it needs to be 50%. I don't know. Maybe it needs to be 0%.

I don't know the answer to those questions right now, but I know that the best thing is to take some action towards trying to get back and recover these stocks of concern that you identified. And I'm trying to take a measured, more targeted surgical approach to trying to figure that out in the area where the biggest problem is, which is Crawfish Inlet. Mr. Wood. Thank you. So I was looking into this before we got here because there were some things that stood out about it.

And, um, and I first want to reference the Sustainable Salmon Policy. Um, and in, uh, 39.222, uh, 3D, it says effects and interactions of introduced or enhanced salmon stocks on wild salmon stock should be assessed. Wild salmon stocks and fisheries on these stocks should be protected from adverse impacts from artificial propagation and enhancement efforts. Okay, so with that said, this is the question we're faced with at West Crawfish. And what we need to assess ultimately is, are these strays, which happens in the wild as well, are they affecting the fitness of the wild fish that were there?

That's a question I think we'd all love to know. And secondly, it brought up the other question. Do— does this board have the ability to even say anything, have a say in this? You know, like this hatchery issue keeps coming down the pike and it's up to the purview of the commissioner to make decisions. But it does state in— and what's the number of this guy?

516.

1610.455(G)(2), the special harvest area means an area designated by the commissioner or the Board of Fisheries where salmon returning to the hatchery may be harvested by the hatchery operators and in some situations the common property fishery. And then 3, terminal hatchery areas means a harvest area which may include a hatchery release site established by the commissioner or the Board of Fisheries where salmon returning to hatcheries may be harvested for the common property fishery. I think what has happened here was originally designed through the process, through the state and through the hatchery program, to be allowed to have a permitted hatchery there.

What happened consequently to that is that we had a couple outstanding returns there that got everybody's attention and then consequently some strain into West Crawfish. It's like, wow. So that being said, I totally support the commissioner's letter and what he is proposing to do. That it only makes sense. And I think it's adequate because to the question of whether the department will continue to do science on this or not, I don't I just, I know they will.

And on top of it, now you've got NSERA involved in this, and right in their backyard, and monitoring this stream in real time, feet on the ground, not just aerial surveys to pay attention to what's going on. The other unique thing about this situation is, is that the Sitka Science Center's there, and they have the ability to work with this new— to understand better how strain occurs. So we know that there's strain all across Alaska, and we're going, "Hmm, okay, it happens in the wild, but how can you numb these hatchery fish so they don't go someplace else?" I think there's an opportunity that has— with the Sitka Science Center there as well, in conjunction with the department and the hatchery system, to work together to figure out maybe how this strain works, and if there's a way to to prevent that from happening. So all that being said, I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this. However, the commissioners made a decision, and I think it's appropriate for the situation that we have here at hand.

Mr. Ziray. I'd just like to state that, you know, I think what the commission is doing right at the moment is adequate. And I think time will tell, and we'll just have to put our faith that the science will move forward ethically and correctly and leave it at that. I go along with what Mike just said too. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] To what extent does the department's genetic policy play into this discussion?

Discussion and will it play into the discussion? There is a policy and it seems to me in reading that policy that some of the things that have occurred to date tell me that either that policy may not have been given the consideration it should have been or that it was worse violated. Madam Chair, our genetics lab certainly has concerns about this type of thing and I think the The big issue here with just chum string in general for, for the region, I think, is that what's been touched on is we've done a lot of studies. We, we kind of have a pretty good handle on what it's like region-wide. We've done a lot of studies that show.

You know, on a subregion basis, the proportions of strays have been reasonably low. We see some high stray proportions in streams closest to release sites, but the real problem is there's no agreement on what does it mean when you have 10% strays or 15% strays or 20 or— and that's something I think really needs to be hashed out, and it would involve the genetics lab working with others to come up with some sort of agreed-upon criteria to judge these things, because otherwise we're just measuring what's happening and nobody knows quite how to react to it or what the potential consequences could be. Mr. Bauer. Thanks, Madam— thanks, Madam Chair. So regarding our genetics policy, you know, the policy doesn't state a specific number that's an acceptable level of straying.

It's not a simple question and answer, and it's an active question of research within the department. [Speaker] Well, here's my concern. So in 2018, you started seeing West Crawfish numbers explode from 0.12% to over 96+%. And, you know, there's in that policy statement too, it's protection of wild stocks, such as gene flow from intermingling stocks. Wild stocks may have significant dental detrimental effects on wild stocks.

First priority will be given to protection of wild stocks from possible harmful interactions with introduced stock. Stocks cannot be introduced to sites where the introduced stock may have significant interaction or impact on significant or unique wild stocks. And I think that that's kind of what keeps sticking in my craw for this discussion. And my concern with respect to bullet 2 and what the, what the department has proposed to do is I don't want this problem spread around any more than it already has. So if you're going to be looking at alternative release sites, that concerns me as well.

Mr. Bowers and Mr. Chamberlain. Thanks, Madam Chair. So another point to consider is that when these sites are permitted, you know, we use local stocks as, as the, the broodstock. So That's in an effort to mitigate the potential effects of straying and interbreeding between hatchery-produced and wild fish. And it's, it's also worth noting that we are in the midst of a, I guess, decade-long study to look at this question of the effect of one— well, there's several questions.

One, Is straying happening? We've answered that question. Two, are hatchery and hatchery-produced and wild fish breeding in the wild? And then three, are the offspring of the, of those hybrids less fit than, than the offspring of two wild fish? And so we've, we are still working on the chum portion of that study because, you know, we have to look at fish throughout their lifespan.

And these fish live to be 4 years old. But the pink portions of that study have indicated that both 2 and 3 occur. Right, Mr. Commissioner. Sorry. Then Mr. Chamberlain.

Yeah, I think we know now what we knew when we permitted crawfish in there. We probably would have made some different decisions. You know, we It's— but now that we have a stock of concern, we're in a different environment. So we're taking a much more careful look at the site. And I think you have a recognition from the department that, that, that once we have these stocks of concern, that we're going to take a closer look at them.

We're going to come up with a recommendation. We're certainly not going to— we're giving the option for the hatchery operators to look at other release sites. But the bar on those release sites is much higher than it was before they were stocks of concern. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Okay, so I wanted to follow up on the, the second half of that earlier question I asked is what are the straying rates at the alternative release sites proposed in this action plan?

And also, what are the straying rates region-wide? Thank you.

Through the chair, I think there was some confusion when I answered earlier, but for the, the Deep Inlet and those other release sites in Sitka Sound, When we were saying we were looking for those fish in our index streams throughout the rest of the northern southeast subregion, and we haven't really seen— we've generally had low proportions. I think the overall index averages were 1 or 2% in the years before crawfish came online. So, so if the fish are moved, you know, I think it was— I forget the number, but if they were moved back to Deep Inlet, I don't think based on what we've seen previously that would have much impact on our index streams. And then region-wide, and you know, we've had some studies to estimate that in southern southeast, I think the overall proportion was less than 5%.

The most variable area has been the northern southeast inside subregion, and I can't remember off the top of my head the complete range, but I think it's averaged around somewhere between 5 to 7% with a maximum, I think, of 13.5%.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Question. Thank you. The question has been called. I guess we'll do our little errors and omissions exercise just for fun.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Weida?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll on the motion. To select Option A for Action 4.

Chamberlain? No. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Svensson? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Carpenter? Yes. Wood? Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against.

Madam Chair? Thank you. And Commissioner, when you do receive your— or make your determination, have a report on, on this issue, hopefully in the next 12 to some odd months, will you please share a copy of that with the board? We certainly will do that. Thank you.

And I'll give you an update where we are in our next October work session. Thank you. All right, let's talk about delisting criteria, shall we?

Madam Chair, there are 3 options here for the delisting criteria. Um, one is if the revised lower bound SEG is met or exceeded in the 3 consecutive years or is met in 4 out of the 6 consecutive years. And two is the management measures would be relaxed if specific areas or during specific time periods if updated escapement data indicate areas and/or times where, when restrictions are no longer needed to ensure the lower bound SEG is met. And then 3 is in the event the revised lower bound SEG is exceeded by more than 4,000 fish in 2 consecutive years, management restrictions may be relaxed or set aside. Madam Chair.

So I have a question on this. 1 And 3 kind of seem to be in conflict with each other.

Is it 1 or is it 3?

Madam Chair, for the record, Troy Tinnis.

In the previous action plans we had, we had identical language to this that was adopted in 2022, and I believe similar in 2018 where we had different criteria for delisting. Certainly number 1 is, as you've noted, Previously for previous action plans is the one that the department also put the most emphasis on as well. However, we also recognized that there may be extraordinary circumstances where escapement was— had changed around. You had a change in survivals or whatever it was where all of a sudden, you know, we had a big return back and escapement was being exceeded. And if that were to occur in 2 consecutive years, essentially we're starting to see a trend upwards in, in these stocks that we didn't want to lose that opportunity to have fisheries now.

And like I said, emphasize again, Option 1 is, is also the department's emphasis. That's the criteria we really want to meet. But understanding that there could be, like I said, changes in productivity changes and whatever. And we didn't want to necessarily, you know, be beholden to Option 1 and meeting that more stricter criteria when we're seeing these trends increasing upwards and there could be a loss in opportunity for some of these fisheries. And again, Option 2 is similar amongst all the plans, and that's just in the recognition that if we had some new data that came in or we looked at things differently or we had some new stock composition data or whatever, we can take that into account in, in, in our management actions for these stocks.

So, um, did that answer your question, Madam Chair? Yeah, it did. And thank you for that, Troy. And I, you know, I'm just kind of— under those extraordinary circumstances where 3 might apply, or that you'd be concerned about, I don't know if it would be an overscapement concern or what it would be. But again, I guess given all of the discussion that you just heard in this space, I mean, I just want to caution the department that if they did even consider such a thing, that there was a very robust apportionment between stock and wild.

I mean, wild.

Potential hatchery stock in that because I wouldn't want to make a big mess worse. Madam Chair, we understand that perfectly, and we also don't want to be making a management— or management decision, you know, as it would be presented in Option 3 or Option 2 and not meet escapement because of that management action and being in front of you in 3 years. Yeah, it's just tricky because I mean, you're using an index instead of just a single— you're using an index instead of like, you know, a single escapement goal for a single system. I mean, that would be, I think, a lot cleaner and easier, but the fact that we have these indexes makes it that much more complicated. So good luck.

Yeah, thank you for that, Madam Chair. And just, you know, that's why Option 3 in this particular plan has slightly different criteria than Option 3 in the, in the prior two plans. Well, with that additional explanation and, you know, the assurance that the focus is going to be on the first bullet in terms of delisting criteria, I'm comfortable with that moving forward. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the board adopt the conditions for reducing management restrictions or delisting of stock of concern for the Northern Southeast Outside Chum Action Plan To include bullets point 1, 2, and 3, with an emphasis on number 1.

Second that. And ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so moved. Okay. That brings us to proposal number 135.

Thank you all.

Madam Chair, Proposal 135, 5 AAC 01.720, Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications, and 5 AAC 01.760, Readout Bay and Lake Sakai Salmon Fisheries Management Plan. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Proposal 135 with substitute language found in RC 94. Second. And ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 94 in lieu of proposed language found in RC 135. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Anthony Wallach.

And if this proposal were adopted with RC-94, a community harvest permit would not be needed to use seining gear or gillnet gear inside the waters closed to commercial fishing when the projected sockeye salmon escapement to Readout Lake exceeds 40,000 fish. It is unclear if allowing the use of seining gear or gillnet gear up to the snagging boundary could create additional It could create additional conflict among gear types in the area seaward of 100 yards from the base of the falls. From 2003 through 2023, the Readout Lake sockeye salmon OEG has been met every year and exceeded 14 times. The department is neutral on this proposal because it is a matter of gear preference and presents potential conflict among subsistence fishers. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, you know, when I looked at the escapement levels in this particular system, I mean, I wish a lot of places had this problem, quite frankly.

But understanding that this gives more opportunity, there's no conservation concern associated with it.

The use of a seine, although it may be a new tool for a lot of people, I think that it's the ability to wrap up too many fish and release them is fairly easily done. So I'll be supporting it.

So with respect to the, the potential conflict amongst gear users, what would the department anticipate in that space? Because it It seems like snagging or things that are happening would not be occurring far enough out unless you're using a beach seine. But if you're purse seining, for example, doesn't seem like that would create too much gear conflict. But I could be wrong. Could you help me understand that a little bit?

Madam Chair, the area close to the falls when a lot of folks go to subsistence harvest usually gets pretty crowded and a lot of boats anchor up within that area and there's just an idea that if people are setting nets and snaggers are being thrown about, there could be potential conflict. See, thank you for that explanation. That makes more sense. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood?

Yeah, I— it's, uh, it's nice to have an over-escape or a high level of escapement that we have to deal with, and, uh, and being able to provide more opportunity with a sane especially in the, in the form of subsistence, I think is an excellent idea. So I'm supportive of this. It'll be interesting to see how the gear types interact down the road, but I'm, I'm supportive.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Carpenter. I'm also supportive of this with all the large escapement that it's having there, it's a good way to be able to just harvest more fish. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. A little bit of the subsistence regulation review. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area?

No. Is this stock customarily and traditionally taken for subsistence? Yes. The board has determined under 5(a)(c)(0)(1)(7)(1)(6)(a)(11)(b)(2) that sockeye salmon in 13(b) in waters north of latitude of Fish Red Cape are customarily and traditionally taken Can this proportion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes, it can.

What are the amounts necessary for subsistence uses? The board has established a range of 10,487 to 20,225 salmon for 9(a) and District 13. Do these regulations provide for opportunity for subsistence? I believe they do. And is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other opportunities for subsistence uses?

I don't believe so at this time. There seems to be adequate escapement. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I call the question.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I will just note that both Central Council Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska were strongly supportive, as was the Sitka AC, with the introduction of the language in RC-94. So I will also be supportive. And the question has been called. Errors and omissions.

Director Payton. No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers. No, Madam Chair. Director Vida.

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson. No, Madam Chair. Captain McGraw. No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 135 as amended. Wood. Yes. Godfrey.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Ziray. Yes.

Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 136.

For the record, my name is Scott Forbes. I'm the Juneau Area Management Biologist for the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 136, 5AAC01.745, subsistence bag and possession limits, annual limits. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

Proposal 136 would increase the possession limit in the Basket Bay-Kook Lake subsistence salmon fishery from 15 to 20 sockeye salmon and the annual limit from 30 to 40 sockeye salmon. The increase in possession limit will likely increase the annual subsistence harvest of sockeye salmon from this system. The Basket Bay sockeye salmon possession limit has been set at 15 fish since 2002, and the annual limit was also set at 15 fish through 2006 and was then increased to 30 fish in 2007, where it currently remains. Although most locations within the Juneau management area have matching possession and annual limits, The possession limit for Basket Bay was set at 15 fish to moderate harvest from the much larger population base of subsistence users living in the Juneau area. Subsistence sockeye salmon systems on the Juneau Management Area permit that receive consistent effort and have had stock assessment projects with lower magnitude escapement estimates generally have lower annual harvest limits.

The department is neutral on this proposal. Increasing the possession limit could result in higher annual harvest, potentially presenting a conservation concern for this small, unmonitored stock. There is consistent, consistent effort from subsistence harvesters from multiple communities, including Juneau, at this location. Sockeye salmon runs are smaller in magnitude than many other systems on the permit, and there is no current stock assessment. The department would prefer more conservative increase in possession limit included in Proposal 137 versus the increase that's included in Proposal 136.

Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, thanks for.

Getting that because these two proposals have similar characteristics. Based on the department's position that a more conservative limit in the next proposal, I will be opposing proposal 136 as written.

Mr. Wood. I will be opposing it as well because it is a small stock and it could get hit pretty hard with a significant increase in that. However, I am very open to the idea of it being accessible. It was mentioned during public testimony that people from Angoon go over there and it would make it worth their while to harvest a few more fish for the trip. So for that, I am not interested in passing Proposal 136, but we'll look at 137.

So I'm not super concerned with what I would consider to be, you know, 10 fish increase, not a huge one. But I agree that I think it'd be a little bit easier and cleaner and to work with 137. So I will not be supportive of 136. Mr. Swenson. I'm in agreement with that too.

I just think that's a small area and there's a danger of, you know, overharvesting there if we're not careful. So I'm not supporting this either. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Touching on subsistence review in this particular area, this stock is outside of the non-subsistence area.

No, the board has determined that salmon stocks in District 12 south of the line from Fishery Point to South Passage Point, north of the line from point caution, including waters of Whitewater Bay, do have a C&T for subsistence. Can this stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes. The board has established an ANS of 1,100 to 1,700 salmon in District 12. Does this regulation provide opportunity?

I believe it does. And, uh, is there a reason to reduce or eliminate other users? I don't. Cost of this approval— this proposal is not expected to result in the additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected result in any cost to the department. I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 136. Godfrey?

No. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

Ziray? Nope. Carpenter? No. Svenson?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails. 0-7.

Madam Chair, 37, please.

Proposal 137, 5AAC01.745, subsistence bag and possession limits, annual limits. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments.

This proposal would increase the possession limit from 15 to 30 sockeye salmon to match the 30-fish annual limit. And I'd ask the board to reflect on my current— my positions I just stated. Thank you for that. Board discussion. Mr. Wood.

Yeah. As I stated before, I think reducing it a little bit more modest. This makes total sense for making the trip and you get to hopefully harvest all your fish and be done. And it seemed to have an overwhelming amount of support as well. So I will be supporting it.

Other board comments? Makes good sense to me. Just cut down on, on the cost associated with the subsistence harvest. I think that is practical and warranted in this, in this case, in this location. So I'm going to be supportive of 137.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd reference my subsistence regulation review from the prior proposal. An approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. An approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department.

I'd call the question. Question has been called. You know, Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson? Final action on Proposal 137. Carlson VanDort?

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Godfrey. Yes. Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Zareh. Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 138.

Madam Chair, my name is Jessica Etheridge. I'm the Sport Fish Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Juneau Glacier Bay Area. Proposal 138, 5AAC47021, special provisions for seasons, bag possession, annual and size limits, and methods and means for the salt waters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit snagging in the Minnehall Wetlands State Game Refuge. Popular sport fisheries targeting hatchery salmon occur in the refuge, and snagging is a widely used method to efficiently harvest Hatchery coho and king salmon returning to release sites at the McCallie Salmon Hatchery and Fish Creek Pond. King salmon harvest opportunity in the Juneau area is significantly limited by conservation measures necessary to protect Southeast Alaska wild origin king salmon stocks. The harvest of Alaska Hatchery origin king salmon occurring in the refuge is a large component of the total annual king salmon harvest by many local anglers, especially those who do not have boats to travel to other areas to fish.

The department is neutral on this methods and means proposal. Prohibiting snagging would reduce the efficiency of harvest on primarily Alaska hatchery-produced salmon where there is no conservation concern. The department uses emergency order authority to restrict, to restrict sport fishing in the terminal harvest area when necessary to protect Alaska hatchery broodstock. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion. I have a question. So I'm looking at the map, Figure 138-1, and I'm trying to understand precisely where— I mean, is the hatched area the entire area that is— I'm seeing is the entire area would be close to snagging. Are they snagging King salmon, coho. What are they snagging there, Madam Chair?

They are snagging, snagging king salmon and coho salmon in the entire hatch area.

Mr. Swenson. Well, I'll tell you, I'm all for snagging sockeye, but I, I don't know why you'd want to snag the cohos and the kings because they will bite. And so I, I don't know. I got to think about this. Mr. Carpenter.

So my assumption is, is that most of these fish are going to end up in a hatchery terminal area. Am I correct? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, this is all located within a hatchery terminal area. Is there any wild stock implications in regards to this area?

Through the chair, over 90% of the king salmon that are harvested in this area are hatchery origin. Okay. I mean, I'm not a proponent of snagging. I'll just tell everybody that right now. But terminal harvest areas are different.

And so unless the hatchery has broodstock concerns, and I understand the department has the authority to protect the broodstock if the hatchery requests that. I can't support this at this time. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, I didn't— I could go either way on this. I personally am not a fan of snagging either.

The lack of discussion during Committee of the Whole didn't help at all when nobody spoke. So I'd be happy to hear a couple other board members put their opinions on the record because I can go either way.

So I have a question. In this area, I mean, there's a lot of just sport fishing for these, these THA-bound kings and cohos too, isn't there, along, along the channel?

Madam Chair, that is correct. This is a very popular sport fishing location. The entire refuge is within the Juneau terminal harvest along the roadside, providing easy access for a lot of anglers who do not have vessels. And its proximity to Diepack also means that many enhanced salmon pass through the refuge, and this offers anglers of all types opportunity to catch fish.

Has there been a lot of gear conflicts or conflicts associated with these snagging in the various harvest methods? That you're aware of?

Madam Chair, potential conflicts can arise within the refuge among anglers of all types due to the differing fishing methods. These differing— these differences can sometimes lead to tensions over access area and fishing techniques. However, the refuge is a very large area, a diverse area at that too, and it has the capacity to accommodate all the user groups. Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Chamberlain.

I can tell you from experience that back in the day when you could snag reds on the Kenai River, when you're snagging fish, you could really get them stirred up. And so if you're snagging fish in an area where other people are trying to get them to bite, it's going to be very difficult to get those fish to bite. So I don't.

No, I guess I'm still thinking about it. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Wood. So as to the breakdown between the wild Chinook and native Chinook, is there a way to differentiate between the two easily, or are there area specifications where you can?

Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator. Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, in this particular area, we actually conducted a shoreside creel survey looking at just this and found 98% of the king salmon harvested in the area were of Diepack hatchery origin. But in general, the hatchery does do adipose fin clips on a portion of the fish, and that helps us determine hatchery-origin fish in the harvest.

Thank you. To what? Okay. Given the fact that these fish, 90% of them are returning to the hatchery to die, I'm all for doing whatever you want. Snag them, use a rod and reel, lure, bait.

I don't care. I think it's a, you know, let people do what they want with this one. So I'm not in favor of prohibiting something that to catch a fish that's just going to die anyhow. So I'm Mr. Mr. Zarey, go ahead. Yeah, I agree with Mr. Woods.

And, you know, snagging, especially if you're trying to, you know, having problems like getting a fish to go to a lure or something like that, snagging is a very effective tool. And if done right, I could see ways that, you know, an experienced person might you know, not do it right. But it's, it's like almost 100% if you do it right. That's in my experience. Thank you.

Quick question. So outside of this hatched area, are you allowed to snag for king and coho, like false outer, for example?

Madam Chair, that is correct. Under saltwater, general saltwater regulations, you are allowed to snag in saltwater. So this is kind of an area that I think people concentrate in because it's tidal. It can get really shallow in there.

Obviously, I mean, I worry about— look, I don't like snagging. It's about the only way I can catch a fish. True story. But, but it's, it's, it just, it's not, it's not very sporting in my opinion, especially on kings and cohos. I'm kind of inclined to support this because there are alternatives for snagging and you can go outside of this fairly limited boundary area right on the road system, right near Fish Creek, Fritz Cove area.

Like there's a whole bunch of sort of concentrated areas where I know that families go and participate in some of this stuff as well. It doesn't seem to be that egregious to me. I'm kind of on the fence still, but I'm leaning towards supporting the proposal. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. An approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on proposal 138. Zaray.

Uh, no. Chamberlain. No. Godfrey. No.

Svenson. Yes. Wood. No. Carlson-Vandort.

Yes. Carpenter. No. Motion fails, 5 in favor to— uh, sorry, 2 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 139.

Madam Chair, proposal 139, 5 AAC 47021, special provisions for seasons, bag possession, annual and size limits, and methods and means for the salt waters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would prohibit snagging within the Don Dee Statter Harbor, Auk Bay.

Snagging is a popular method of sport fishing in saltwater, especially in a terminal harvest area that is located within, within the Juneau Road system. Before the Statter Harbor expansion, there was ample space for anglers to fish safely. However, this area has become increasingly crowded. The department is neutral on this methods and means proposal. If adopted, the department recommends a boundary line that would include the Don Dee Statter Harbor and the current no snagging zone at the mouth of Otter Creek, as shown in Figure 139-1.

Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. Thanks. So this is a different situation. It at least appears that way to me at face value.

I mean, this is a boat harbor. It's a much smaller area, I would assume, by looking at the chart in 39-1. And I guess I'm either curious to know from the Department of Public Safety if there's a lot of issues with people and conflicts with the harbor users, or if the department has any information. Try and— we had no public testimony on this. People put proposals in that are kind of controversial, and they don't come here and defend them.

Provide public comment, it's hard to make decisions. So if either one of you have anything, please let me know.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I'd say this is both an infrastructure and a safety issue. Since the expansion of the harbor in 2021, there's been several incidences where vessels or people were struck by snagging hooks. The docks were extended to accommodate tourism in Auke Bay, overlapping with areas that were common to snagging by locals. Fishermen casting these heavy hooks from the shore towards the docks have raised safety concerns to CBJ, um, harbors, patrons, vessels, and other tourists. On top of that, CBJ currently puts up no snagging signs in the area, but the practice persists even just because due to like lack of enforcement.

While there is a CBJ ordinance requiring the public to follow posted signage, the city believes that the state regulation, that if it were in a state regulation specifically prohibiting snagging in that area, it would lead to a clear authority and it would strengthen enforcement efforts. Mr. Carpenter, I mean, I guess I just have a quick follow-up to that. You know, I'm looking at the chart on 139-1, and so basically what you're suggesting, that if the board were to adopt this, that you would prefer the line from What is it, Wadley Creek across the mouth to the Fish and Game regulatory marker? Am I reading that correctly? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, that is correct.

This boundary line is already established in codified regulation, um, with regulatory signs already posted to inform the public. Therefore, we believe that if this proposal is adopted, that this familiar line would make it easier for anglers to understand the no new snagging zone in the area.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Wood.

What type of fish— what species of fish are they snagging here?

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, normally they're snagging king salmon. Really? Well, I can also testify that when you're snagging and you're ripping a bluejohn through the water with a treble hook— I can remember the days when me— when I was doing it, that I had to duck the thing coming in when I jerked it too close to me. So I know it's dangerous.

Mr. Wood. Okay, on this one, I could see the high potential for user conflict, especially with a lead fly that's flying. So I think this does have some merit since it's so close to so many people and that there's actually a boundary already established, like you mentioned, I think that makes really good sense. And so I think it's— I support it.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend Proposal 139 to Close snagging with using a line from Wadley Creek to the fishing game regulatory marker on the opposite side of the bay. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objections, so moved.

Quick question for you. Is that supposed to be— I don't know what Wadley Creek is. That way to like—.

I believe I'm saying it correctly. Wadley Creek. It goes right by the Spalding Beach condos. Right there. That's way to like— whatever.

I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe that's farther down. OK. Other board discussion? Well, I'm pretty familiar with this area.

I think so anyways. But it has expanded a lot. There's a lot more activity down there, especially in the summertime when this would be— when the snagging would be occurring. There's houses, there's kids, there's people coming and going. There's people that are not familiar with docks and waters coming and going down there like crazy.

There's pets.

So I'm supportive of this.

Of the proposal. And clearly there's an issue of CBJ Docks and Harbors are submitting the proposal as well. So other board discussion? Mr. Godfrey? Yeah, I'm, I'm moved enough by the safety concerns.

Why? You know, I've not been there and observed it. Sounds justified enough for me, so I'll be supporting it. Mr. Carpenter? Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to any additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 139 as amended.

Svenson? Yes. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain?

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

Zaray? Yes. Godfrey? Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Okay, let's go ahead and take about a 15-minute break, come back on the record, Rep 4.

Okey doke, welcome back everyone. Back on the record. Time is 4:02. We're still in deliberations, Group 5, Proposal 140.

Madam Chair, for the record, I'm Kelly Ruppert, the Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 140, 5AAC, new section. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 140 would require the use of single barbless circle hooks in the sport fishery from April 1st through June 14th. If adopted as written, these regulations would apply to all anglers when sport fishing in saltwater and freshwater, regardless of species being targeted. The department engages in various education and outreach efforts to reduce unintended mortality by promoting best practices for catch and release fishing. Education on proper catch and release methods include recommendations on tackle choice, hook removal, proper handling, and photographing. Terminal gear most commonly used in Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries consists of barbed single hooks or barbed treble hooks used with both bait and artificial lures.

Circle hooks are commonly used when targeting groundfish species and are rarely used in freshwater. Studies on recreational marine sport fisheries indicate that release mortality is most often most influenced by hook placement and fish handling, not hook type. These studies indicate that the use of fishing practices such as the use of bait facilitate ingestion and deep, deeper hook placement, causing higher mortality rate than hook type such as treble, single circle, and/or barbless. The department opposes requiring the use of barbless single hooks in all Southeast Alaska sport fisheries between April 1st and June 14th without a biological need. This will reduce sport fishing efficiency, complicate regulations, and provide no meaningful conservation benefit.

Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Wood. So I think this proposal might be getting to something positive, but there's a few— I mean, it appears that there's some missing language in it. And not to mention that it doesn't even specifically say what species of fish he's targeting. And it had a fair bit of opposition.

So he might be getting to something here, but he might need to rewrite it and submit it next year. Unless I can— somebody else can figure it out for me. Mr. Swenson.

I can't support 140 either. I think that, you know, that's, that's going too far.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, this is vague. I don't like vague proposals. Be specific when you submit proposals.

Give the board ample amount of information. There's not a conservation concern that's been exhibited, so I won't support it. Adoption of this proposal will result in— will result in an increased cost for a private person to participate in the fishery because existing gear would have to be replaced with barbless circle hooks. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 140. Wood? No.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Zareh?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 141.

Madam Chair, for the record, Kelly Reppert, Sport Fish Division. Proposal 141, 5AAC new section. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments.

Proposal 141 would prohibit the use of bait in all saltwater sport fisheries of Southeast Alaska between April 1st and June 14th. If adopted, the release mortality of sport caught fish may decrease by an unknown amount. The department engages in various education and outreach efforts to reduce unintended release mortality by promoting best practices for catch and release fishing. Data from saltwater charter logbooks indicate that charter anglers do not regularly target and release king salmon during the non-retention period in Southeast Alaska waters, except in the Ketchikan area. The majority of the king salmon released in Ketchikan occurs in one stat area.

On average, about 68 Southeast Alaska wild stock origin king salmon are estimated to have died from incidental mortality annually during this time frame. The department opposes prohibiting the use of bait in all saltwater sport fisheries during the king salmon non-retention period. King salmon returns to the Eunuch, Chickamin, and Chilkat Rivers have improved and are no longer stocks of concern. The king salmon action plans have been successful in reducing the harvest of these stocks, and further restrictions on the use of bait is not necessary. The department prefers the current regulatory language combined with the use of angler education to encourage best catch and release practices while not expressly prohibiting the use of bait.

Madam Chair. For discussion. Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were 2 ACs in favor and 7 opposed, and there were well over 100 PCs opposed to it and very few PCs in favor of it.

Thank you.

So I agree with the comments on the previous proposal. I think they apply here too. This seems to be pretty vague. I think what the intent is, is to release or reduce catch and release mortality. I'm going to, you know, on Chinook, based on how I read the proposal.

But we already have, and it was specific to, I think, concerns related to particularly stock of concern status. Stocks, but that's not really what it says. And we have action plans and sport considerations in those action plans for those stocks of concern designated designees, I should say. So I'm not going to be supportive of this either.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'll reference my comments from Proposal 140 as well. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Peterson? No, Madam Chair.

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson? Final action on Proposal 141. Wood? No.

Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandork? No. Zareh?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 142. Madam Chair, Kelly Ruppert, Sport Fish Division.

Proposal 142, 5 AAC 47.023, special provisions for seasons, bag possession, annual and size limits, and methods of means for the freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Proposal 142 will open Ketchikan Creek to sport fishing year-round and establish a king salmon bag and possession limit of 2 per day, any size.

King salmon in Ketchikan Creek would not count towards the nonresident annual limit. If adopted, annual emergency orders to open Ketchikan Creek would no longer be necessary. The creek would be open to sport fishing year-round, and king salmon bag and possession limits would be established by regulation. A seasonal sport fishing closure from June 1st through September 14th has been in regulation since 1986 to allow for broodstock collection that previously occurred at the Deer Mountain Hatchery. Because this closure is in regulation, the department must issue an emergency order annually to open the creek to sport fishing and establish regulations for surplus hatchery king salmon that return to the creek.

The department has established a bag limit of 2 king salmon any size and removed the nonresident annual limit in Ketchikan Creek annually since 2015. A personal use dip net fishery for king salmon is also conducted in the creek. The possession limit is 5 king salmon per person with no size limit. The department submitted and supports this proposal. If adopted, this proposal would establish current management practices into regulation and eliminate the need to issue an emergency order.

Madam Chair. Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'll support this. I think because the broodstock collecting has— is being done somewhere else and there's no reason to do that.

I think this is ease of regulation. I think it's clear for the public. It doesn't make the department have to issue the EO every year. And this is increased opportunity for king salmon on a terminal harvest fishery. So I'll support it.

Swenson, I would also support this for the same reasons that Mr. Carpenter just said.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. For the department, is there a reason why 2 fish, if it's terminal harvest area, if that number could go up? Is there any rationale behind it increasing from 2?

The 2-fish size limit applies to all anglers, and there's no annual limit for either residents or nonresidents. And we believe that this provides a measured fishery with reasonable opportunity for all anglers.

I would hesitate to raise the bag limit. It's a small fishery in town. Excellent. Thank you for that explanation. And I approve of this proposal.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions. Director Payton. No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Wheeler? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 142. Godfrey? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 143.

Madam Chair, I'm Craig Schwanke. I'm the area management biologist for the Prince of Wales Island for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 143, 5AAC 47.022, General Provisions for Seasons and Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits for the Freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Proposal 143 would increase region-wide combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches in length for Southeast Alaska. Current Southeast Alaska trout regulations are consistent with the conservative standards set forth in 5A(c)(75.220), the Statewide Management Standards for Wild Trout, which specifies bag possession and size limits for Southeast Alaska, and 5 AAC 75.222, the policy for the management of sustainable wild trout fisheries adopted by the board in 2003. The catch and harvest of combined rainbow and cutthroat trout in Southeast Alaska freshwaters has significantly declined since the 1990s, despite relatively stable conservative regulations since 1994. The department attributes the decline in catch and harvest of trout to reduced angler interest in targeting trout and increased expense to access remote lakes.

The department is currently conducting a multi-year research project to evaluate trout populations in a selection of lakes across Southeast Alaska. The study is strategically aligned to present results and provide recommendations for the 2028 Southeast Alaska board cycle. The department opposes increasing the regional bag limit for trout. The department does not have region-wide biological concerns for the trout resource, but this regulation would deviate from current region-wide trout regulations, which meet the standards for conservative management the board established for the Southeast Alaska area and the statewide management standards for wild trout and may not be appropriate on a region-wide scale. The department recommends completing the current ongoing research that will be used to inform potential changes to the management provisions for trout and returning to the board with recommendations in 2028.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I looked into this one a little bit. I listened to the Clawock AC testimony. I also looked at what they've provided in RC 118, um, conferred, confided in the department.

Um, although this would simplify the regulations specific to the Clawock Lake drainage systems on POWA, but considering the, the research and the, the data that the department is gathering over the next few years. And I think they've just demonstrated that in their statement.

I just couldn't— I can't amend or I can't change the original proposal at this time, but it could be something that the Kwak Advisory Committee could bring back in a few years.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. 1 AC in favor and 7 opposed. Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

As I understand it also, that the subsistence is already at 6 fish, so it wouldn't— it would not affect the subsistence part of it. So this— I can't support this either.

Just because I'm kind of curious, what would be the deviation from the region-wide, from 220, 5 AAC 75-220? It would increase the bag limit from 2 to 4 fish, so double the bag limit. I'm sure. So that's the bag limit is for trout throughout the state. Throughout Southeast Alaska.

So it's a region-wide trout regulation, 2 per day, 2 in possession, combined rainbow and cutthroat trout. Got it. Thanks. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood?

Yeah, thank you. I'm looking through the Policy for Management of Sustainable Wild Trout Fisheries, 5 AAC 75.222, and it just talks about the need for being conservative because a lot of these places don't get the attention by the department due to their remoteness or how many lakes there are. So being conservative is important. I guess what I would ask the department is how— and maybe it's— maybe I missed that, but what's your assessment of these lakes, this lake where they're asking for a larger bag limit?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. The department started conducting cutthroat trout research in 2018. We had a slight lapse due to budget constraints, but we reinstituted that program in 2023. So we've done a combination of studies. We've done mark recapture studies to estimate populations in two different lakes.

In other lakes, we're doing a more efficient assessment where we're going into a lake for a short period of time and we're capturing a large number of cutthroat trout and basically looking at length composition. And in so doing, we have a better idea of how many trout are in lake based on catch rates, catch per unit effort, things like that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that.

I—. Well, judging from how you— your opposition to this, I think I'll just take your word. Respect your choice on that and roll. Thanks.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for private persons to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions, McCall, errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. Captain Negra? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 143.

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

No. Godfrey? No. Svenson? No.

Chamberlain? No. Zarek? No. That motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 144.

Madam Chair, proposal 144, 5 AAC 47.022, general provisions for seasons and bag possession, annual and size limits for the freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on proposal 144 as the proposer withdrew support in RC-118. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 144.

Proposal number 145.

Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 145, 5 AAC 47.023, special, special provisions for seasons, bag possession, annual and size limits, and methods and means for the freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments.

Proposal 145. This proposal would increase Kawak River drainage on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish and lower the minimum length of harvest from 14 to 11 inches.

Current Kawak River drainage trout regulations meet the conservative standards for wild trout, which I referred to in the previous proposal. The Kawak River drainage is near the towns of Craig and Kawak. The department does not have population data for the Kwok River drainage trout populations. The catch and harvest of combined rainbow and cutthroat trout cannot be estimated for Kwok River drainage specifically, but catch and harvest in Prince of Wales Freshwaters has declined since 2003. The department attributes the decline in catch and harvest of trout to reduced angler interest in targeting trout.

The department is currently conducting multi-year research project to evaluate trout populations in a selection, selection of lakes across Southeast Alaska. Including Klawock Lake in the summer of 2025. The department opposes increasing the trout bag limit in the Klawock River drainage but supports lowering the minimum size limit from 14 to 11 inches. This would provide additional harvest opportunity and align Klawock River drainage regulations with the Southeast Alaska General Trout Regulations, which meet the standards for conservative management the board established for Southeast Alaska and the statewide management standards for wild trout. The department does not have a Klawock River drainage trout information and recommends completing currently planned trout research before changing bag limits.

Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. So from what I'm hearing you say, the department supports the idea of reducing the minimum length from 14 to 11 inches. Is that correct? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, yes, that would provide additional.

Opportunity. As the proposers asked for, asked for opportunity, this would provide some additional harvest opportunity. Okay. And then the other question I have, it's a general question, but I noticed that there's no annual limit, which, you know, okay. But there's also no closed season.

In a lot of places around the state, there's definitely closed season for cutthroat and rainbow trout, and specific to the spawn. Is, is that consistent across Southeast Alaska? Is it only Or does it vary from area to area? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, in general we do not have spawn enclosures for trout in Southeast Alaska, but yes, it is common in other areas of the state. Thank you.

When is your research due to be completed?

Madam Chair, as I mentioned, we started the research in 2018. We're going to continue Depending on budgets for the next 3 seasons, we do have a project planned for Klawock Lake this upcoming summer and a lake in the Sitka Management Area. So obviously we cannot hit all lakes while we're hitting a sample of lakes, and we plan on continuing it for the next couple of years and come back to the board with our results and possible recommendations for allowing additional opportunity for trout in Southeast Alaska. Madam Chair. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. As I'm reading through the policy for management of sustainable trout and fisheries, do you guys, does the department look at the potential for increased use in some of these areas? Like the focus on what's been a resident fishery may end up being more of a guided sport fishery down the road, and so being cautious for that, what might be coming.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yes, we have offices in all the major communities throughout Southeast Alaska, staff present, knowledgeable staff of the area. So yeah, we— I do believe we can anticipate those types of changes. And just for your information, guidance for freshwater on the top and in Southeast Alaska is highly managed by the United States Forest Service. They have user days.

It's more restricted than it would be under state regs. So guided activity we can generally predict, but unguided activity, I think just our boots on the ground information, local knowledge would be able to assess any potential issues.

Is this a function of just reduced effort? I mean, because I'm hearing from the locals that there's a lot there and they're causing problems and all these things-ish per their proposal. But I'm just kind of wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Madam Chair, so we do have effort information from the statewide harvest survey for the freshwaters of Southeast Alaska. Unfortunately, that effort cannot be divvied out between who targets trout, who targets salmon. But in general, effort's been relatively stable, a slight decrease, while trout harvest and catch has decreased substantially since the early 2000s. We attribute that mainly due to lack of interest, just fewer people trout fishing. And once again, that's kind of through our local knowledge of having staff throughout the region.

Thanks. I was, I was looking at Figure 145-1 and trying to figure out precisely what that was going on there and what that was trying to tell me. So, Mr. Swenson, maybe you can explain to me You guys are opposing the— to increase the trout bag limit, and yet you're leaving the season open year-round. That seems to be in direct contrast.

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, in general, Southeast Alaska is such a wide geographic area, so such diversely spread out lakes, drainages, rivers, creeks. We just rarely see concentration on spawning trout populations, so it just has not been an issue in Southeast Alaska. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Before, before I consider amending this, I want to ask you two questions.

Number one, is reducing the size from 14 to 11 inches consistent with the standards in the wild, the general wild stock management.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. Yes, it is. The reason that the Kawak River drainage lake drainage is 14-inch minimum size limit is that it is considered a high-use water lake because its proximity to the towns of Craig, Cloaque, and it's also on the road system. So the 14-inch just provided another conservation measure to ensure that female cutthroat trout had a chance to spawn at least once. For most lakes, previous studies show that an 11-inch minimum size allows most female trout to spawn at least once.

Like I said, this was a high-use water, so it's just a little bit extra conservation on the system. But due to the lack of effort, we feel comfortable that we can reduce that to 11 inches. Thank you for that. So in light of that, Madam Chair, I move to amend Proposal 145 for the Cloaque River drainage combined rainbow and cutthroat trout Bag and possession limits will remain at 2, and it would change the minimum length of harvest from 14 inches to 11 inches.

Second. Sorry.

Any discussion?

So it's a high-use area. There's not a lot of issue with this right now. Because there doesn't seem to be a lot of use.

Will that impact your study?

I mean, if you— if we do this, I mean, is there going to have any, any impacts on the study? No, Madam Chair, we don't expect a substantial increase in effort of sport harvest. So no, I do not believe so. And does the 11-inch length change that is proposed— does that appear anywhere else in the region, or is this an— is this an exceptional reg? No.

So the regional reg, the regional minimum length is 11 inches. So this would align Kawak Lake with the regional trout limits. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll call the question on the amendment. The question's been called.

Call the roll. Please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just trying to get clear on the amendment from the original proposal. So on the amendment, that would modify the proposal to keep the bag-in-possession limit as the current regulations are at 2, but change the size limit from 14 to 11 inches. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct.

Thank you. On the amendment, Carpenter. Yes. Zareh. Yes.

Godfrey. Yes. Carlson. VanDort. Yes.

Wood. Yes. Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Amendment carries 7-0, Madam Chair. We have the proposal 145 as amended before us. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal does not expect to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal does not expect to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions been called. There is no emissions.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda?

No, Madam Chair. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 145 as amended. Svenson? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zareh? Yes. Godfrey?

Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 146.

Madam Chair, Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 146, 5 AAC 47.023, special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, annual and size limits, and methods and means for the freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 146 would increase 108 Creek drainage on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches in length. The 108 drainage consists of two lakes and multiple creek reaches that likely support multiple rainbow and cutthroat trout populations. The department does not have population data for 108 Creek drainage trout populations. The catch and harvest of combined rainbow and cutthroat trout cannot be estimated for 108 Creek, but catch and harvest in Prince of Wales Freshwater has declined since 2003. The department attributes the decline in catch and harvest of trout due to reduced angler interest in targeting trout and increased expense to access some remote lakes.

108 Creek is not a remote lake. It is on the road system. Just to clarify, the department opposes increasing the trout bag limit in the 108 Creek drainage. The department does have 108 Creek drainage trout information— does not have 108 Creek trout drainage information, and this regulation would deviate from current trout regulations that meet the standards for conservative management the board established for Southeast Alaska and the statewide management standards for wild trout. The department recommends completing the current ongoing research that will be used to inform potential changes into the management provisions for trout and return to the board with these recommendations in 2028.

Madam Chair, for discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I agree with the department's assessment on this one. I think that it's not consistent with the, the area in Southeast and the statewide management standards for wild trout.

Out. And I do look forward to the information that you gather over the course of the next 3 years with recommendations in the— during the next board cycle.

Other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I just note that the department doesn't have the trout population information to support increased harvest opportunity and sustainable— the sustainable wild trout fisheries specifically speaks to that. So With that, I will be cautious and not vote for this.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions on the call? There's no omissions. Director Payton?

No, Madam Chair. Bowers? No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 146. Wood?

Nope. Godfrey? No. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Zareh? Nope. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Svenson? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal 147.

Madam Chair, Craig Schwanke, Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 147, 5AAC 47.023, Special Provisions for Seasons, Bag, Possession, Annual and Size Limits, and Methods and Means for the Freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments.

Proposal 147 would increase Neck Lake on Prince of Wales Island combined rainbow and cutthroat trout bag and possession limits from 2 to 4 fish between 11 and 22 inches and prohibit the use of bait year-round. The department assessed Neck Lake cutthroat population in 2018 and documented a healthy population of cutthroat trout. 14% Of the cutthroat trout population was greater than 11 inches and available for harvest under current regulations. The population is isolated due to a barrier falls at the outlet that prevents upstream fish passage. The department supports increasing the Neck Lake bag limit for trout.

The statewide management standards for wild trout does allow for the liberalization of harvest opportunities for trout in bodies of water under 5A(c)(75.210) Special Management Areas and liberal harvest opportunities for trout. The cutthroat trout population is healthy and isolated. Based on recent research, the department does not have biological concerns for the Neck Lake trout resource, and additional harvest opportunity can be provided. Neck Lake is currently managed under the region-wide regulations, which allows the use of bait between September 15th through November, November 15th. This bait window is primarily, primarily intended to provide additional opportunity for coho salmon in the freshwater fisheries, but no coho salmon are present in Neck Lake due to the barrier falls.

Prohibiting the use of bait would reduce catch and release mortality on trout. Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

So you're in favor of the bag limit increase, but not the prohibition that the proposal suggests for year-round bait. Is that correct? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, we are in favor of increasing the bag limit on neklik, and we are in favor of Not allowing bait. Okay. I understand now.

Thank you.

Other board discussion?

So this is an isolated stock. Are there any habitat concerns that, that, that may arise? I imagine this is pretty remote. Madam Chair, this lake is actually on a road system. It's near the community of Whale Pass.

A little bit of history. It was a net pen rearing site for Sarah for Coho salmon. They have— that was the Neck Creek summer-run coho production. They did eliminate that program, so those net pens are no longer available. But we do not have habitat concerns or population concerns for this population.

Madam Chair, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, just one thing that you have in your department comments that this lake is currently managed under region-wide regulations that I guess only the use of bait is allowed from September 15th to November 15th. Is this going to create regulatory complexity or is this kind of an isolated— an isolated incident in which you are comfortable doing at this time?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. We do have special regulations on drainage throughout Southeast Alaska that prohibit the use of bait to protect trout, or more often to protect steelhead. So this would not be to deviate too much from current practices. Okay. Well, having said all that, I'll support the proposal, and I think the department's demonstrated that they don't have a conservation concern and I guess we'll move forward.

I'm just taking a look at the policies for management of sustainable wild trout fisheries, and that's why I was asking about some of the habitat issues.

Policy also notes that this should be managed on a watershed basis, including riparian zones, water quality and water quantity, and also that wild trout should be— trout should be protected within the trout spawning, incubating, rearing, and migratory habits. So This is proposing, and maybe this is what's in writing already and I've just missed it, but year-round no bag limits. So any concern about the spawning or the rearing time associated with these trout? Madam Chair, I'm fairly familiar with that lake. I was involved with that mark recapture population estimate we conducted in 2018, and we've done subsequent, subsequent studies there as well.

There's a couple inlets where the trout likely spawn. Some of them are only accessible by boat on the lake, not road accessible. No, we do not have any concerns as far as habitat degradation or pressure on spawning habitat. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question.

Question's been called. You know, Mr. Payton? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Dr. Rita? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson? Final action on Proposal 147. Godfrey? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Benson? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 148.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jeff Rice, and I am the Sport Fish Area Management Biologist for the Petersburg Wrangle Area. Proposal 148, 5AAC 47.023, Special Provision for Seasons, Bag, Possession, Annual and Size and Methods and Means for the Freshwaters of Southeast Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments. This proposal would repeal the minimum size of 25 inches or greater for cutthroat trout in Eagle Lake in order to align with general provisions in Southeast Alaska, which allow for a bag and possession limit of 2 cutthroat trout no less than 11 inches and no greater than 22 inches in length. Should this proposal be adopted, the general provisions for trout in Southeast Alaska will now apply in Eagle Lake. The bag and possession limit for cutthroat and rainbow trout in combination would now be to fish no less than 11 inches and no greater than 22 inches in length. There would be no annual limit, no closed season.

The use of bait would be allowed September 15th through November 15th. In 2023, the department assessed the cutthroat trout population in Eagle Lake and found an abundant cutthroat trout population, although no cutthroat trout over 25 inches was found after sampling more than 1,100 individual fish. Rainbow trout were not observed in Eagle Lake. The department submitted and supports this proposal. The current regulations are unnecessarily conservative as additional opportunity can be provided in Eagle Lake while continuing to be consistent with the statewide management standards for wild trout.

Madam Chair. Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were 2 ayes, 0 nays in favor and none opposed. Thank you, Mr. Wood.

So it sounds like this lake's pretty remote. To the department. Yes. Through the chair, Mr. Wood, it is a very remote lake. It's fly-in only.

Okay. Is it getting any— a fair bit of attention already? Angler days? Through the chair, Mr. Wood, through the only cabin on the lake is a U.S. Forest Service cabin. There's been averaging 5 nights per year over the last 5 years.

Okay, great. Sounds like you've been really paying attention to it, and I totally support your proposal.

So I have a question. So in your proposal, you note that this used to be a trophy lake. What's— what happened? What do you think is going on, especially if there's such low usage? Why aren't these trout growing there?

Madam Chair, it was a trophy lake. There was a certain group of these trophy lakes set aside. This lake had all the makings of a trophy lake as far as it goes, though there's never been a recorded 25-inch trophy trout caught from this lake.

I'll be darned. Mr. Chamberlain. Well, that, that covered my question. So let's increase this to more than a handful of nights a year for that forestry cabin. So I'll be voting in favor of this.

Mr. Wood. Is there any explanation why those lakes that are so populated like that seem to plateau out with the size limits and they all seem to be very consistent?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Through the chair, Mr. Wood, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Well, I just— when fish all have such a very consistent size in a lake, in a remote lake especially, and that you don't see any of these bigger populations of fish, why is that?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, Over time, things do change. And because this is not a trophy lake now doesn't mean it will not be. I think they reach a certain kind of carrying capacity and drops off in population and then rebuilds. All right, thanks. Mr. Swenson.

I don't know if this would apply to that lake, but there was a set of lakes at home in Anchorage down to Kenai. And it was really amazing because if you wanted to catch a small fish, you had to fish close to shore, 'cause you'd catch fish, bigger fish, like 18 to 22 inches. We never caught a fish over 22 inches. And the deal was, most of these fish had some kind of a fungus in their gills. And I don't know if that would apply to that lake, But it certainly applied to this lake.

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, we, we conducted the survey in a way in which we fished all around the lake, set traps all around the lake, trolled in the middle of the lake as well.

In the end, we feel we covered as much of the lake as we could during the 4 or 5 days we were there. In the actual cabin book that we looked through there, as far as historically looking back at the notes people had in the cabin, it did seem people were catching the biggest fish right in front of the cabin.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. It appears that the lake has reached its carrying capacity, in my opinion. So I think this does create opportunity for people that are going to use this remote lake, and it's consistent with the statewide management standards for wild trout. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department.

I'd call the question. Question's been called. Arizona Omissions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Rita? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 148. Zareh?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Godfrey? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Wood? Yes. Carlson-Vandort?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 149.

Madam Chair, my name is Jessica Etheridge. I'm the Sport Fish Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Juneau Glacier Bay Area. Proposal 149, 5AAC, 47023, Special Provisions for Seasons, Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits, and Methods and Means for the Freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this would prohibit the use of bait and establish a catch-and-release fishery for trout using only a single barbless hook within Peterson Creek. Peterson Creek supports populations of several salmon species, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden, and is a popular sport fishing location located 19 miles northwest of Juneau. Bait is only allowed in Peterson Creek from September 15th through November 15th, specifically for anglers targeting coho. In addition, bait is not allowed year-round within the Saltchuk.

Studies have documented that the mortality of released fish is largely dependent on the hook placement, fish handling and angler experience. The department opposes this proposal. Emergency order authority is being used to close the sport fishery for the duration of the steelhead season that also allows— I'm sorry, also provides additional protection to trout. This would add unnecessary complexity to regulations and reduce harvest opportunities to— for cutthroat trout in the absence of a conservation concern. The department will continue to use emergency order authority to protect returning steelhead and coho salmon as needed.

If adopted, the department seeks clarification on the use of single barbless hooks and whether that would apply for all sport fishing in Peterson Creek. Madam Chair. Thanks. Board discussion.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, it appears that the current regulations already protect steelhead. That could be caught accidentally. So I'm inclined to believe that the regulations that are in place are working and good enough, adequate.

Is there an identified steelhead issue? Or how is the department assessing steelhead stocks?

Madam Chair, each spring we conduct snorkel surveys in Peterson Creek. We have observed a slight upward trend on the steelhead population in Peterson Creek. The lowest count was just in 2019, but our most recent count in 2024 was the highest that we've had in 25 years. Okay, great. Thanks for that.

First of all, that sounds like fun. I would go snorkeling in Peterson Creek. Secondly, I would just note or reference that in the proposal, the identified reason was to rebuild dealhead stock. So if you're seeing an increase, then I'm comfortable with the current rates and will be supportive. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Godfrey? I'll be opposed for the reasons the department cites. Mr. Carpenter? Adoption of this proposal will result in increased cost for a private person participating in the fishery because existing gear would have to be replaced with barbless hooks. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Peterson?

No, Madam Chair. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 149. Chamberlain?

No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Zeray? Nope.

Svenson? No. Godfrey? No. Carpenter?

No. Wood? Nope. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 150.

Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Rick Hoffman. I am the commercial fisheries manager for the Yakutat area. Proposal 150, 5AAC01.660B, fishing seasons and periods. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

Uh, in the Akutat area, subsistence has been a critical, um, fishery, and it's been ongoing long before there was statehood, as there's been tribal entities there before there was statehood. The unpredictability of tides and adverse conditions can significantly impact fishing opportunities. These factors often limit The effectiveness of the short opening periods and making it challenging for families to gather enough fish to sustain themselves through the year. Longer open periods for subsistence fishing could accommodate these environmental challenges and allow the community members to fish when conditions are favorable. The department supports this proposal and because it provides additional opportunity for subsistence users in the Yakutat area, Yakutat area, to meet their subsistence needs.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. 2 ACs in favor and none opposed. Thank you. A couple questions.

I'm assuming they're using gillnets. That is correct, Madam Chair. How does this— how does the sockeye timing comport or relate, if at all, to the timing of the kings? They overlap greatly.

So this is something that I had a debate or two about. I'm just— I'm concerned about the harvest of kings, overharvest of kings, if we're liberalizing the sockeye escapement. Talk to me about the status of the king stocks in the SeaTac. Madam Chair, there has been a non-retention in the subsistence fishery for Chinook for the last decade. There's been a couple openings within the last decade when we have got a high enough escapement that I have opened up the subsistence fishery, but the take has been— it was on the later end of the season so that there really wasn't much of a harvest during that time.

Are there.

What are the current mesh regulations in the sockeye subsistence fishery? There are no restrictions. They can use like a 7-inch mesh if they wanted to? Not that you would want to with sockeye, but you could? Yes.

Mr. Swenson. Couldn't you go to a dip net fishery in this so that if they caught kings, you could release them? So we have just a gillnet.

Sorry, through the— through the chair. So most of this fishery occurs in the estuary, which is the brackish water. It's not— it's not a place where you could do dipnetting. And it occurs where the commercial fishery occurs because that's where people are familiar with doing the— just familiar with fishing. So that's where they— they just do it in the same area that they commercially fish.

They are dipnetting in Cook Inlet out into the dirty water and have been pretty successful. Yeah, I also close around the SeaTac mouth to help protect Chinook because it is a high interception area. So I also close that to subsistence fishing. So where that— where you could do that dipnetting and probably have a high chance of intercepting sockeye. I closed that area to try to protect because it's also a high Chinook area.

Okay, thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I mean, I'll just tell you, that gives me great pause. I mean, it's shocking to me that there's king gear allowed anywhere in the state of Alaska, quite frankly, considering what we've heard around the state.

But having said that, if you're going to target sockeye That's fine. There should be a mesh restriction, and I hope that you have the authority to— through EO— to issue that mesh restriction. And if you don't, please tell me that. But you can't put a 7.5-inch mesh net in the water and target sockeyes. And so in my opinion, if you're doing that, you are creating a problem that doesn't need to exist.

So if you could expand on that, I'd appreciate it. Through the chair, Carpenter. Yes, I do have the authority. I could do a mesh restriction, but for most of the people here that participate in this fishery, they're using the exact same gear that they're using for the commercial fishery, where again, I have restrictions of a non-retention of Chinook. And so they, they're just using— they're using the same gill net, and so they're not target— since they can't target kings, they're not using king gear.

I understand exactly what you're saying, and thanks for clarifying that.

But there's a significant difference, in my opinion, with commercial fishing subsistence. If there's king salmon conservation concerns at all, I would hope that you use that— your authority— because even using 6-inch mesh web or 6.25-inch MEB that you might catch coho with in the fall if you're a commercial fisherman, you're going to catch king salmon, and there's going to be a high percentage of those that you're going to have a problem with. So when you do issue net restrictions, or do you just never do that? So I have never done that, and my predecessors have never done that. Um, most of the people, like I said, they use the same gear And they're targeting those large sockeye, but it's also, they use the same mesh that they target with coho.

So they're not switching, they're using that kind of like sweet spot of large sockeye and like mid-size coho-sized gear, which, you know, they do, you're going to have kings that run into that and get caught up in that. It happens. Listen, I don't want to belabor my point, but Targeting large sockeye is very easily done with 5.25-inch or 5.5-inch gillnet web. Saying that you're targeting large sockeye with anything above that, I just don't believe it's true.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, would you repeat again? Did you say that the sockeye and the kings are just overlap in that fish at that time of year? Yeah. So when, so when I open up the subsistence year-round in Yakutat, there is no closed season for subsistence in Yakutat.

So this, this proposal with the time changes because once commercial opens up, it goes to a Friday, Saturday, and then from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. And this proposal is trying to expand on that time frame. And during when people don't start really subsistence fishing until they start seeing in the commercial fishery that there's fish around and then they go and start fishing. And our sockeye fishery, when that— when the bulk of those fish are showing up is also when the bulk of our Chinook start showing up. Okay. So you're expanding on that time frame in this proposal.

And you're using— you could be using— there's no restrictions on the mesh? And how long and deep are these nets?

They're only about 15 fathoms. They're only 15. It's within regulation. It's like 15 fathoms is what they can do. Long.

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah, my follow-up is, is I'm, you know, I'm With the mixture of the two, I don't know how big those sockeyes are, and if it's primarily sockeye, you know, 5.25, 5.8, where I live, does great. But it'll also tooth a king, no problem. And coil up a bigger chum. I mean, I think the potential, do you have any records on how much king is intercepted there in this fishery?

So since they're through the chair— sorry, I haven't been doing that, but through the chair, yes, I— since we— I don't have a record of like how many fish are hitting a net during an open period, but I have records of when the harvest was allowed, of how many kings were harvested when there was an allowance to retain Chinook.

But do you know how many?

I guess I'm unclear. Through the chair, I'm unclear what you're seeking. Do you keep— is there a harvest ticket or any records at all about how many king are harvested in that fishery compared to sockeye? Yes. So I— on the permit, they're to record what they harvest.

And so I have the information of how many sockeye were harvested and then how much Chinook were harvested. But like I have mentioned, we don't have a Chinook retention. We have a non-Chinook retention. And so it's zero for retention of Chinook right now. And then whatever they're harvesting for sockeye.

Mr. Swenson, then I have a question to Mr. Swenson. I don't know if you've answered his question. How many kings do they catch? They are not catching any. Well, there are kings that are hitting off those nets, but I am not getting any recordings of retention of kings because I have a non-retention.

Okay. Going on. Do those fish, are those fish go to the SeaTuck? They go to the SeaTuck and they go to the Anklin and they go to the Lost River and they go to a few other little streams that are in the estuary where the fishery occurs. So how big is that run to those streams?

So on SeaTuck, we've had a wide range of, of escapement. We've had as low as— we, when we, in 2008 and 2018, uh, we had a low of about 20,000, and then we've had highs of 130,000, 140,000 sockeye in the SeaTac. And the Anklan, we do foot surveys on a tributary in that system, so we just get a kind of an index of that, that run, but we don't have a strong idea of the strength of the, of the Angolan run. Okay, so when you say the kings hit the net and bounce off, what's the percentage of kings that are killed in that gillnet fishery? I don't have that information.

Thank you. Yeah, I mean, if it's non-retention, it's illegal to put one on your fish ticket, so it's going to be zero. So my question then is, what gear are you currently authorizing? Do you have— do you have put any mesh restrictions on any, or what— do you have any indication of what people are using? They can use up to 7.5, I think you said.

Do you know what they're actually using? A majority of people are doing that 5.25, 5.3, 3/8. Why wouldn't you just set that as the mesh restriction.

I could do that, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I just want to provide a point of clarity for the record. This is Troy Tinnis, Area Management Coordinator. Um, get closer to the mic here. Um, we do not have authority and regulation for subsistence fisheries to set mesh size restrictions or Gilnitz. Madam Chair.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I mean, I want to focus in on the language in the proposal. I mean, we've had enough discussion about this, but.

Frankly, I encourage the department to come forward with some language if that is what you are requesting to ask for that authority in the future. I have no problem giving— with the time changes that is written in the proposal. I mean, it does expand subsistence opportunity, but obviously I have stated my position on what I think you should be doing, but you are the manager, so I will leave it at that. I do want to go through the subsistence review for this particular area. This is not a non-subsistence area.

Is this a stock customer interest taken for subsistence? Yes. The board has determined that 5AAC-01666(a)(3), salmon and freshwater upstream of the terminus of streams and rivers in the Acted area from the Dome River to the Siu River in waters of Yakutat Bay, Russell Fjord, inside a line from the westernmost point of the Ocean Cape, and in the waters of Icy Bay inside a line of the westernmost tip of Point Rio to Icy Cape Light, our customary and traditionally used. Can a portion of the stock be harvested? Yeah, I think sockeye can definitely be harvested.

And what is the amount of reasonably necessary? The board has established a range of 5,800 to 7,832 salmon reasonably necessary. Do these regulations provide reasonable opportunity? I'd say they do. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate to provide for that reasonable opportunity?

I don't think that there has been a conservation concern listed except for in regards to the mesh size specific to king salmon. So other than that, Madam Chair, uh, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. So I'm just going to say that, um, I would like to provide this opportunity. I sincerely would, and I understand the reason why it's being requested, but given the fact that we don't have the ability to target or to use the specific gear that would limit impacts on Kings and that would be most successful in targeting sockeye.

I can't do it. I want to, but I can't do it. Troy. Madam Chair, you asked earlier what the escavement to the SeaTac has been, and we generally have been meeting the escapement goals for the SeaTac River. Last year we met it, the year before we did not.

Obviously we're not presenting as a stock of concern, so it does not meet that criteria. And similar to other stocks around Alaska, essentially, I mean, it's certainly been in a depressed state. So I don't want to give you the impression we've been meeting escapement every year. And we feel that through management actions in all the fisheries, being in particular this fishery being using our time and area authority and, and where that and adjusting where that fishery takes place. And as Rick mentioned, requiring non-retention in that fishery.

We do feel that, you know, we have been taking the efforts and the management actions have been effective in trying to pass as much fish to escapement through all the fisheries that take place. In the, in the, in the inlet. So I just wanted to provide hopefully that context. And if that helps you in your decisions. Not really, because I've also heard that those, those nets can target other, other rivers in which we have little to no assessment.

And also, as a point of clarity, the other systems mentioned were sockeye systems. So there's, there's the— as far as that, the Situk River is where the king salmon go. The other systems within that inlet that do have smaller runs of sockeye that we do have assessments for where we conduct foot surveys or boat surveys on those systems. The SeaTac in particular, we have a weir at the lower part of the river that we assess steelhead, Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, as well as coho for until they pull the weir. So we do have that part of it.

But the other systems within there are primarily sockeye and coho systems. And not King Salmon. Yeah, look, but we've got, we've got proposals coming that are going to be requesting restrictions and area and things to— for King conservation purposes. It just isn't meshing for me in my brain. And I really wish that there was— I wish that there was a proposal before us that would give you some authority to adjust these mesh sizes in a way that would prioritize that King conservation, because SeaTac may not have a stock of concern conservation right now, But I'm concerned that they'll be staring down the barrel of one sooner than later, especially, you know, with the trend that I've seen with other rivers in the area and around the state.

So I don't know what would make the SeaTac that exceptional to, to not be— to not having king problems. Mr. Swenson, then we're going to wrap this up. Is there any way that you can delay the sockeye, you know, the that fishery, you know, the net fishery out there to allow some of those— is more of those king salmon to get through, or are they just all come at the same time?

Through the chair, so they overlap pretty heavy, so there's not a lot of room for separation as far as like shifting a start time on it to, to not intercept kings. They just overlap so heavy. And yeah, so there's, there's not really a chance there for like starting them earlier or starting them later. Mr. Wood, I just want to clarify, the department supports this. It's a subsistence fishery.

It was put out there so to be more efficient because of the tides and the bad weather. You do—. It's—. It is a non-retention for kings. It's targeting sockeye only.

And you don't have stocks of concern up in the river. Is that right? That is correct. We have no stock of concern for sockeye or Chinook. Okay.

I, I'll vote for it. Thank you. Question's been called errors and omissions. Well, first of all, Director Wieda. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make a brief point that, as you know, that the, the positive CNT is for all salmon and the ANS for that has not been met since approximately 2017. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Arizona missions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 150. Carpenter? Yes.

Yes. Zareh? No. Godfrey? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood? Yes. Svenson?

No. Chamberlain? No. That motion fails. 3 In favor, 4 against.

Madam Chair, proposal number 151.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Jason Pollack. I am the Yakutat Area Sport Fish Management Biologist. Proposal 1515 AAC 47.022, General Provisions for Seasons, Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits, and Methods and Means for the Freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area, and 5 AAC 47.023, Special Provisions for Seasons, Bag Possession, Annual and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Freshwaters of the Southeast Alaska Area. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments. Proposal 151 would modify the nonresident annual limit for king salmon in the freshwaters of the Yakutat area and the Situk River to 2 king salmon 20 inches or greater in length per year. King salmon harvested in Yakutat area freshwaters by non-residents would not count towards the non-residents annual harvest limit established by the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Currently, non-resident king salmon annual limits for freshwaters are established by the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan that directs the management of the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Sport Fishery in marine waters.

Proposal 151 would establish consistent annual limits for non-residents who fish the freshwaters of the Yakutat area. Annual limits would not be linked to the King Salmon Management Plan. This would not impact the department's ability to use emergency order authority to restrict the sport fishery for conservation purposes. The department submitted and supports this proposal establishing a non-resident annual limit of 2 king salmon 20 inches or greater provides a consistent management regime independent of the King Salmon Management Plan while continuing to limit the harvest potential for nonresident anglers on these relatively small king salmon systems. Madam Chair, what's the current limit?

Madam Chair, Because Yakutat freshwaters are linked to the King Salmon Management Plan, as an example, last year I believe the annual,.

Yep. The annual nonresident limits last year were 3, 2, 1, similar to the marine annual limits. In previous years, just to give an example, they were as high as 6, sometimes 4. It moved around quite a bit, Madam Chair. Did you make escapement goals last year?

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, can you repeat? You met escapement goals last year but not the year before, is that right? Correct, Madam Chair. On the Situk River, which is our main assessment project in the Yakutat Management Area for king salmon, we achieved the escapement goal with 517 fish. The year prior was our worst escapement at 144 fish.

And just to be clear, these are large king salmon greater than 28 inches. That's what our goals are based on. Right. And I'm assuming that you closed down the fishery in that year.

Madam Chair, I'll just speak to the sport fishery. You've already heard from commercial fisheries. Sorry. Yes. For the sport fishery.

The sport fishery has been closed prior to the season for the past 20 years, Madam Chair. Now it has reopened in some years when we've met the midpoint of the goal range or have gotten near the upper end of the escapement goal range. Madam Chair, for kings, for king salmon. And that— when did that last happen?

2020, 2021, And 2022. For the last 3 years, we reopened the king salmon sport fishery in the SeaTac downstream of the weir.

Mr. Swenson, maybe I missed this, but what, what's the resident limit?

Through the chair, Mr. Swenson, the resident bag limit is 1 per day. There is no annual limit for resident sport anglers. Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood, it hasn't met.

Would you repeat what you said about this meeting escapement in the last 5 years? How many times has it met it?

Give me a second, please, uh, Madam Chair. Through the chair, Mr. Woods.

Thank you.

I believe in the past, since 2005, Mr. Woods, we've failed to achieve the lower end of the escapement goal in 8 years.

Can I follow up? I mean, I— how, how can the department support opening a fishery like this to non-native Residents, when, when the escapement goals have been that low, which— what are you guys— can you tell me the rationale behind it? Director Payton. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to refer board members to in staff comments 152-1. There's a long time series of escapements on the SeaTac River. So I think it'd be helpful if board members turn to that.

We want to answer the member's question.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, just to be clear, sport fishing for king salmon has started closed for the last 20 years on the Situck River.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. I mean, So understanding that right now when you do open the sports fishery, it follows kind of the marine bag limits that are throughout Southeast Alaska. It would, depending on what it is that year and what it is in the management plan.

I think the 20-inch or greater in length is a something that's pretty consistent in regulation. So in theory, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the 2 salmon, king salmon limit. The 20 inches is okay with me. It is more conservative typically than— but there are years, there are going to be years depending on what the treaty number is and all kinds of other factors, what, what those numbers are given the differences in the time of year, what that actual nonresident bag limit will be. So in theory, this could actually be— at some points in time, this could be more aggressive for the Yakutat area than it would be in the rest of Southeast Alaska.

So, um, I mean, I, I obviously want to provide some opportunity, but the escapement goal numbers over a period of time, it's just It seems to me that the residents, you know, they're currently releasing king salmon from their subsistence nets. And I have a hard time justifying creating a season or a bag limit that is higher than what they can keep in their subsistence nets. So I understand why you brought this forward. You want— you want it to be very consistent so that when you do open this area, it's pretty clear to people participating that this is the limit and it's over 20 inches. But I have a real problem with the idea that subsistence folks can't keep fish and we're creating the potential for a nonresident fishery.

So for those reasons, and I'll listen to other people, but I'm very reluctant right now to support it.

Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Patrick Fowler, Southeast Alaska Management Coordinator. And Mr. Carpenter, you're, you're seeing the heart of why the department brought this proposal forward, recognizing the disconnect, the different reasons we have for establishing the annual limit for non-residents in the King Salmon Management Plan, which is designed to achieve the sportfish allocation of treaty fish versus the harvest potential in freshwaters of Yakutat. So I guess we certainly defer to the board's discretion on opportunity between resident anglers and non-resident anglers and providing for subsistence users.

This is an effort to— when proposing a 2-fish annual limit, we picked the middle of the current range of the nonresident annual limit that ranges between 1 and 3. And I just emphasize the department's still going to continue to use our emergency order authority to restrict the fishery. Well, like, like Mr. Pollack mentioned, we've started the season being actually more conservative than the management plan calls for by starting with the closed season and then only opening once the midpoint and the upper end of the BEG has been achieved. So it's not the intent to, you know, allow additional opportunity for non-residents in this area. It's, it's more just settling the disconnect between the King Salmon Management Plan and our potential regulations here for the Yakutat area once the department— once the upper end of the BEG is achieved and harvest opportunity would be allowed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I agree with you 100%, Patrick. And, and I understand why the department brought this forward, but subsistence in this state takes priority. And I can't vote for this proposal the way it's written when it talks about 2 king salmon. There are times and years that this is going to be a bigger bag limit if you open the season than it's going to be in Southeast Alaska, depending on what the treaty number is, etc., etc., because that's going going to vary.

So unless some member of the board wants to change that number, which I'm not going to do, I'm not going to support it. But isn't the issue that if we don't change the number, then there is that potential for 3 fish? Or is it good— just, do you have the ability to adjust within that range, or is it set in reg, 3, 2, 1, at certain levels?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Under the current regulation, The annual limit that's established in the Yakutat area is tied to the King Salmon Management Plan. So I think the idea was to be consistent across all the fisheries in Southeast Alaska's saltwater. And Yakutat is unique and it's the only area that we have freshwater fishing opportunity for king salmon. I'm sorry, I distracted myself.

Could you repeat your question?

My, my question was, is that under the existing reg, you have the ability to close the, close this, this, the freshwater fishery. Do you, are you, are you prescribed to start it at a certain level, or do you have the ability to adjust the bag limit or the annual limit within the current management plan? Thank you for the clarification there, Madam Chair. So the department doesn't have EU authority to distinguish between residents and non-residents when providing harvest opportunity. So the board's given us direction to when the fisheries open that the nonresident annual limit that the King Salmon Management Plan calls for would apply in the freshwater of Yakden.

So the department's— we've used our authority to close the fishery and we've used our authority to open it when it's necessary. But when it's open, we would default to the guidance that the board has given us, that when it's open, the nonresidents would follow the annual limit that's established by the King Salmon Management Plan. Yeah, I mean, I'll get to the other member here in a second, but I'm having similar heartburn. Like, we have non-retention in the subsistence fisheries. We've got non-retention in— or I shouldn't say non-retention, but we've got non-retention in the commercial.

Fishery. I just— I don't understand why this disconnect exists. But we're getting to that place where the board gets tired too. So Mr. Carpenter, I just want to ask a question, and I talked about that I wouldn't offer an amendment.

And so somebody please tell me if this idea would work. Is it possible for the board to set the king salmon limit over 20 inches, but that it would only open when retention was allowed in the state subsistence fishery?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I just want to be clear that these are general regulations. They pertain to all Yakutat freshwaters is what we're trying to change. We're trying to solve— just because we do this does not mean the sport fisheries are open or have been open. So just your concern— when I listen to your concerns about subsistence be in non-retention, commercial be in non-retention. We haven't had a sport fishery in 20 years.

Just because we change this in the books doesn't mean it's happening. It's, it's just— yeah, thank you. I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is I do not want the regulations in Yakutat to be more liberal or more progressive than the entirety of the Southeast Alaska King Salmon Management Plan. Plan could provide, which is why you're bringing this proposal forward.

But what I don't want is a non-resident sport fishery to be opened while retention in the subsistence fishery is not allowed. And if you can't address that, I understand that. But that's where I'm leaning to move. And if I— if you think it's a valuable tool, please let me know, because I think it clarifies and it's— it separates Southeast Alaska from Yakutat. And I think that's what you're trying to get at.

Through the chair, thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Yes, you nailed it. We're trying to separate the King Salmon Management Plan from this. A couple points of clarification, I guess. In the following proposal, 152, the department's recommending restructuring of the management plan that guides this fishery.

And in that plan, it lays out clearly that the there are management triggers for when we open the king salmon fishery in the area. The subsistence fishery has first priority, would open first, and the sport fishery would not open in the Sitka River until we reach the upper end of the BEG. So this would only apply when we have a lot of king salmon back and subsistence has a clear priority.

Okay, I understand. I'm going to make the motion. I move to amend Proposal 151 To strike the number 2 king salmon to 1 king salmon over 20 inches. Nonresident retention is not allowed or the season cannot be opened unless subsistence fishermen in the area can retain king salmon. Second, and ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Carpenter, can you please repeat the motion for Director Nelson? Sure.

Freshwaters of Yakutat area and the Situk River. One king salmon, 20 inches or greater. The season can only be open for non-residents if retention in the subsistence fishery is allowed. I've got a second. Request unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved. We have 151 in front of us. Any additional board discussion? Mr. Commissioner, I think that's a very good amendment and I support it. I was listening to the discussion here and subsistence is a priority and we just took a vote on a different proposal where we talked about concern in a gillnet fishery.

So I think this is a proper motion. I support it moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, I just want to say that you did clarify for me the concern that I had, especially when you referenced going from 151 to 152.

So I get it. It's on the books. We've made it with this amendment more digestible, I think, and— or I should have said palatable, because I think that amendment really helps me feel comfortable with this. And if when it's implemented someday down the road, then it'll be implemented very conservatively. So I thank you for the— this discussion to clarify it.

We're in the weeds for sure. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Arizona Omissions.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action is proposed on Proposal 151 as amended. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Carpenter.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Godfrey. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Zareh.

Yes. That motion carries 7-0, Madam Chair.

Okay. Just taking a little poll around the table here a little bit. I think that You are hearing fatigue up here. And I want to make sure that we do justice to the proposals that we have in front of us and make good decisions on them. So I think we are going to pause here for the evening.

I was hoping to get a little bit farther through this, and I apologize to folks if they were waiting, but I think it is in the best interest of the board and the policies to take a break here for tonight and start tomorrow morning at 8:30.