2025 Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, and Chignik Pacific Cod Meeting (10-31-25)

早上好.

All right, good morning everybody. The time is 8:53. The day is Friday, October 31st. Happy Halloween to everyone. Um, we're going to go ahead and begin deliberations on Pacific cod proposals that we have before us.

And just as a reminder, the board will deliberate proposals 1 through 9— or 1 through 10, I'm sorry. And then proposal number 11 will be heard again and deliberated at the statewide meeting in March. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and begin. And the other thing that I would let people know is I know that there's a lot of work done on some substitute language.

That has sort of coalesced around proposal number 6. So I think what we'll do is we're going to take up proposal number 6 first, and depending upon that vote, we'll go through the rest of them in numerical order. Any questions?

All right, let's get after it. Proposal number 6, please.

Proposal number 6, 5AAC28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move we move we adopt proposal 6 with substitute language found in RC 17. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection.

Objection. Okay. Yes. What is your— would you like to speak to your objection? Thank you, Madam Chair.

On RC 6, I— oh, I'm sorry, to accepting the substitute language.

John, that— oh, withdraw my objection. My—. Okay, so we have a unanimous consent still on the table. Is there any objection to the unanimous consent? Hearing none, we have the language in RC17 before us in lieu of the original proposal number 6.

Staff comments, please.

This proposal seeks to Beginning in 2026, the guideline harvest level would increase to 35% of the estimated total allowable harvest until 2029, when the estimated guideline harvest level for Pacific cod in the South Alaska Peninsula area is 32.5% of the estimated total allowable harvest. The department is neutral on this proposal.

Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. So RC-17 is something that came out of a meeting last night with as many user groups as I could possibly find to go in there and debate this with department staff. We had a very good discussion.

It took a while. I think there was a lot of compromise on both sides. And I think what this does is it changes the allocation from 30 to 35, and in 3 years it drops that number back to 32.5%. And the rationale for doing that is that we've heard that there's going to be quite a bit of new information that's coming out in a few years. And, you know, apportionment possibly into the western Gulf that's going to potentially have some big impacts on that side.

And, you know, we have some information right now, quite frankly, that we don't really have access to because there's a federal shutdown. And so everybody felt that taking a small step to provide some more opportunity in the western Gulf, but to revert back to a lower percent, at least in my opinion, it doesn't take board action to do that. It just reverts back. But, so that, that's the general synopsis behind it. And I really appreciate everybody that, like, participated and came to this conclusion.

So I'll be supportive. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to this, I want to speak to the effects of this allocation. A large portion of the federal fishery is held by CDQ groups, and there's been a lot of discussion on CDQ groups, and I had to have an at-length discussion over how those are affected in my region.

Um, CDQ groups, for all intents and purposes, are essentially nonprofits designed to work for the benefit of about 65 Western Alaska communities ranging from, uh, Norton Sound all the way down to the Aleutian Islands. Um, and there's a congressional mandate. Their purpose is to provide, uh, eligible Western Alaska villages with opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, to support economic development in western Alaska, to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and to achieve sustainable and diversified economies in western Alaska. And for those of you who haven't been into western Alaska, and I'm not talking about the fishing villages, where the ports are. I'm talking about villages like Unalakleet, Nunamikwa, Makoriak, all of these villages.

I've been to these villages and I've had to stay in there, use honey buckets for 3 or 4 days because there lacks basic infrastructure for these. And so when, in using the recent Hurricane Halong as an example, there was a large, about 1,600 people displaced And there was a large gathering of groups that were working to look to see what they could do. And there were a small number of groups, Bristol Bay Borough and Lake and Penn Borough were there. But you also saw the CDQ groups, Oscar Yvonne from CVRF was there, YDFDA was there, and they were looking at, and this is what these groups are intended to do. And so when we're looking at reallocating, you've got the Aleutians East Borough, which has the first and third largest fishing ports in the world and many different fishing opportunities for those fishermen.

We are reallocating from those 65 communities for the benefit of about 20 to 30 fishermen in this small community. I, I simply am not comfortable with this, and For that purpose, I will be strongly opposing this. Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood.

Okay. I've got other things to say and I'm not going to— I'll just speak to that, but not go far with it at all because I don't know much about the CDQ groups, but I'm pretty sure that that was designed to fish the Bering Sea and there's 500 times the amount of cod and fish in the Bering Sea than there is in the Gulf of Alaska. This right here is strictly pointing to small communities in the Gulf of Alaska in particular. And I don't, as with all of these allocative decisions, it's harsh, super harsh, because then you start pitting which rural community deserves it more. But in this case, we're dealing with the monster corporations that are supposed to be in the Bering Sea, and we're talking about small boat village fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska that are asking to make it worthwhile in their communities as well.

I was part of that discussion yesterday. I think even these large corporate groups very much understand the feeling, the humanity that they have as well. And, and, and, You were able to see it in everyone's faces that this agreement came about because they all wanted it in the end. It was not easy. And I'll leave it at that for now.

I'll, I'll pull together my other thoughts in deliberation, but I'll let some other people speak to it.

Mr. Irwin, I'd just like to ask Mr. Carpenter a question. Um, how did the— during the deliberations, um, how did the 32.5 number come from? How— just, you know, I understand you were talking with many shareholders. I'm not questioning that. I'm just curious as to how you guys got to that number.

Thank you for the question, Miss Irwin. Um, so we started off talking about proposals 1 through 8, and there was— it was pretty clear from the get-go that a lot of those proposals were just not going to work. So the first thing we did is we came up with the 35%, and both didn't like it but came to that decision to support that number because we have a lot of information that we're probably going to have a much better understanding in the next 2 years, which could, which could change things dramatically in the western Gulf.

It became apparent that maybe keeping it at 35% might not be the appropriate thing. Some wanted it to go back to 30, some wanted to stay at 35, and the 2 groups came together and picked 32.5. And decided that we can live with that right now. We understand there's going to be new information. The TAC could go up dramatically in the next 3 years, and the reapportionment information could have a substantial impact on, you know, fishermen in state waters in this area.

And so that's the general synopsis. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Wood. So I did want to take a moment to address Mr. Wood's comment on the Magnuson-Stevens Act or CDQ groups not being intended to fish in the Gulf of Alaska. I want to clarify the area we're dealing with when we're addressing right here is the Aleutian Islands Management Area, which is specifically contemplated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

And if we are going to address the impacts of CDQ groups in the Gulf of Alaska, it should be worth noting that the Kodiak AC actually did oppose this proposal. Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Okay, thank you. Um, the— to Miss Irwin's question for Member Carpenter as well, the commissioner was clear that there were some— there were 3 kind of criteria in his mind to not go overboard with this. The reason we pulled it together into— or the user groups pulled it down from these.

Kind of 50 or 60 is made a lot of sense because anything large was gonna put us into the whole ESA listing for the stellar sea lion. It could potentially leave some stranded tack out there. And there was one more I can't totally remember. But nonetheless, I think that is, that we were trying to use that framework to come up with this agreement, something that wasn't crazy. And it was somewhat incremental over time with the idea of the 32.5 that it could be dialed back in case the new science shows that things aren't going in the right direction or maybe the TAC increases.

Either way, it could benefit or hurt either person. I'd also like to point out that the Gulf of Alaska, the small fishermen, what they're asking for in their communities goes directly back to their community too in terms of fish taxes houses and stuff. So I understand that the position the CDQ groups are in bringing it back to communities, but that happens as well, especially in the Falls Pass, Dutch Harbor. I mean, it's, it's, um, so to speak to that, that's it.

Mr. Godfrey, as a general approach on the board, the board members are in a position where we have to figure out what's generally best between competing interests among stakeholders. And my general approach— and heretofore I have never seen a compromise that's been struck that I didn't support, because I don't seek to insert myself, um, as a higher authority arbiter between the actual stakeholders who know better and are fighting for their livelihood. So there's nothing I like better when there's a compromise struck and That generally means everybody's not happy, but everybody's not extremely disappointed amongst the stakeholder group. This is pretty easy for me to support in regards to that, so I have no problem supporting the compromise language.

A couple thoughts. So I think that from my perspective, when I was looking through the proposals, the original numbers that were being put forth in terms of the reallocation struck me as being wholly unreasonable out of the gate for a lot of reasons. I have sat at this table for 7 or 8 years now, and I've seen 5% reallocations watch people completely come unglued. So I'm glad to see there was some discussion around, um, 5%. I think that that is a much more reasonable starting place in terms of reallocating or allocating this, this resource.

I think I probably would have preferred to see it revert back to 30 after 3 years only because we'll have the benefit of that additional information. I wish that this meeting would have scheduled like a month later, frankly, so that we might have a little bit more access to more recent information on this. But I appreciate the efforts of my board members and I appreciate and I appreciate the efforts of the people that met yesterday to talk through it. So I'm going to sort of reluctantly support it. But at the end of the day, what we're doing here, and as we often do, is we're pitting rural Alaskan communities against each other.

Like both of these— both sides of this equation, I think, benefit the communities in our state that need it the most.

So So in the spirit of the compromise, I'm going to support the language. I'm going to be very interested in watching what happens with the TACs over time. And certainly if the TAC goes down and precludes the federal fishery from occurring, we do have a process to address that. Right. We have an emergency petition.

I think that this— that type of scenario is precisely what that emergency petition and the ACR, but particularly the emergency petition process, is for. It is certainly not my intent in voting for this language to compromise the ability of the CDQ groups to prosecute, um, in the federal fishery. Um, I think they're both important. So I want to watch that closely. And certainly I don't want to make it and get to the point where it's either a closed fishery or uneconomic.

Sounds like they're already consolidating their resources to be able to fish for these cod. So again, I'm going to support the language. I want to watch it closely. And if that TAC drops, I mean, ideally it's going to increase and Great. Wonderful.

Let's, let's have another conversation. But if it decreases, I think it's important that we agree that it's worthy of another conversation. Mr. Swenson.

I like the idea of a compromise because, you know, we sit up here as a board and, you know, there's some of these things we don't know much about. I, I don't know much about COD. And we have made some of these same kinds of things in the last year. This is my third year. In the last couple years, we have also, between these competing user groups, we've gotten together someone on the board, in this case Mr. Carpenter and so on.

It doesn't make any difference who did it, but it sure makes it a lot easier when you get the competing groups involved, and I know that, you know, from my background in building and developing and stuff, there's always compromises that need to be made, and nobody's happy completely, but nobody's completely unhappy, as Jared said. So I can certainly support this compromise, and I'm happy that, you know, this was done because I, for one, was not sure of all these things that are involved. These things are complicated. So I will be supporting this. Thanks.

Mr. Wood. Thank you. I think with this allocative decision, I'll run through some of the allocation criteria here. I'll start with number 6 of it, that the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located. Number 6.

I think that one speaks for itself when making the decision about this allocation in particular. And the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located. Number 2, the number of residents and non-residents who participate in each fishery in the past and the number of residents and non-residents who can reasonably be expected to participate in the future. I think the importance of this fishery for the remote communities in the Gulf of Alaska is super important, and they're trying to hold on to that legacy. And third, the availability of alternative fishery resources.

I think it's such a remote, remote Aleutian area. People are just trying to make a living. We heard that there's places there that even God doesn't want to have, apparently. So given the case that they're— that there's not a lot of alternatives. And one thing we're supposed to do here in the state is provide options for people throughout the season to fish, so it's not a one-off.

And so having this option available is important. Anyhow, I'll leave it at that. And then I would like to note also that, that the Kodiak AC was opposed to this. However, this was unusual. It struck me that the Fairbanks AC was actually very supportive of all of these proposals to get more fish back to the local area, as well as was the Sandpoint and Aleutians East Borough, which you could imagine, of course, they would be.

But nonetheless, that really struck me.

That's it. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Before I do cost, I just like to say that to Mr. Chamberlain, I completely understand your position on this. But I do think it's important not only consider the socioeconomic impacts that the CDQ groups have on western Alaska.

I also think it's important— we are a state board, Alaska Board of Fisheries— to provide opportunity in state waters. I think this board has showed that what they did 3 years ago in Dutch Harbor has become a very, very good framework to provide opportunity in state waters. So I do consider both of those when I make my decisions. And so I think in this case, I think this is a very reasonable thing to do at the time. I think compromise is always the best way to move things forward.

And, you know, this process happens every 3 years, as Chair Carlson VanDort said. And so Keeping an eye on the information and learning new things about this cod population, how they aggregate. Article 6 as amended with RC-17 as substitute language.

Winston.

Uh, no.

Wood. Yes. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter.

Yes. Carlson VanDork. Yes. Irwin. Yes.

Godfrey. Yes. Motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against. I made the wrong vote.

I meant yes.

Gentlemen. Well, we got caught up in all this. Director Nelson, please recall the roll. I'm going to call the roll again. We're just going to cancel that.

It's Halloween. Okay. Final action on Proposal 6 as amended. Wood. Yes.

Godfrey. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. Motion carries, 6 in favor, 1 against. Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

Moving on to proposal number 1.

So number 1, please. Proposal 1, 5AAC 28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 1 in light of action passed with Proposal 6. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal number 1. Proposal number 2, please.

Proposal 2, 5 AAC 28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 2 in light of the action the board took on Proposal 6. I second that and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 2.

Proposal 3. Proposal 3, 5AAC 28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 3 in light of the board's action on Proposal 6. Second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 3. Proposal 4. Proposal 4, 5AAC 28.577, 28.577 South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 4 in light of the action the board took on Proposal 6.

Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 4. Proposal 5. Proposal 5, 5 AAC 28.577 South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 5 in light of the action taken on Proposal 6. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 5. Proposal number— oh, I'm sorry, that was proposal— yeah, Proposal 5. Proposal 7.

Proposal 7, 5AAC 28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 7 in light of the action they took on Proposal 6. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 7.

Proposal 8. Proposal 8, 5AAC 28.577, South Alaska Peninsula Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 8 in light of the action the board took on Proposal 6. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 8. Proposal 9.

Proposal 9, 5AAC 28.650, Closed Waters in Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Areas, and 5AAC 28.5XX, new section. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 9, found in RC9, withdrawal from the False Pass Advisory Committee, and RC10, withdrawal of support for Proposal 9 by the Sandpoint Advisory Committee. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 9.

A word on withdrawals. Um, so in RC9, I believe that the False Pass AC was the sponsor. Irrespective of whether or not the sponsor who proposed the proposal withdraws their support for it, it still belongs to the board. So just from a process or procedural perspective for new members around this table and for folks who have never kind of encountered that before, if there were interest in a member for continuing to take up that that proposal or that issue, the board could take it up irrespective of whether or not the proposer withdrew it. That's not the case today, but I just kind of wanted to throw that out there for everybody.

Okay. Proposal number 10.

Proposal 10, 5AAC 28.648, Dutch Harbor Subdistrict Pacific Cod Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board adopt proposal 10 with substitute language found in RC 7. I second that and ask unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language found in RC 7 in lieu of the original language in proposal number 10. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would change the 7 days following the closure of initial season for pot gear to 3 days. Between the federal and state seasons. This would provide less time for vessels to move gear from fishing grounds, but they would also provide more opportunity to fishing. The department is neutral on this, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion, please. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

So this substitute language is trying to address It's trying to address basically the small boat issue in state waters. So the way the regulatory language is now is that when the federal waters close, there's a 7-day window, which is also, just to be clear, is a very similar regulation that happens around the state in these different federal fisheries. So this was to try and provide a little bit more opportunity for the small boats in state waters so that when that transitionary period happens, is that people that were moving from federal waters to state waters, sometimes the competitive level of that becomes very, very different for those small boats. And so it was just trying to provide some more opportunity. Now, having put this substitute language in, you know, there, there are other things that I took into consideration and I'm still taking into consideration now.

One of them is, you know, fishermen have choices to make. But what, what this would do is it would— could possibly make people fishing in federal waters have to make a choice to quit a day earlier, possibly 2 days depending on the weather, to be able to move that gear. Now, You can— you can leave the gear in federal waters unbaited. So, you know, that is one thing to consider. But the smaller boats participating, it's a much more daunting task than a bigger boat, obviously.

And so I like the idea of trying to curb this problem a little bit that may exist on a small level, but You know, there are other things to consider as well. And one of the things is, you know, safety and, you know, trying to move big pots around when the weather's bad. And, you know, that's definitely a concern. So that's why I put the proposal in. And I'll look to hear what other board members say.

Mr. Wood. Sure. Okay. So I appreciate the alternate language. I understand the situation with trying to give more opportunity to the small boat fishermen as well.

In anything like this, when you shorten a period of time, you do make people— there's a tendency for people to hurry and do things that could, in conditions that otherwise they wouldn't do. And in order to make that timeline, so the safety issue on it really is an issue for me. Although it's a personal choice, like I'm not making your choice and it's whether it's 7 or 3 days that you're gonna go out and kill yourself. But anyhow, I just think that is something to think about. I like the point of view that a small boat fisherman has to make that decision every day, being in the open ocean.

So I think the 3 days is, I'd like to hear what other board members say. I could either, I'm kind of on the fence with it myself, but.

You know, thinking about the— does 7 days give you more time to do things, to wait for the weather and make things happen more safely? I have a question. Um, what is the overall vessel length restriction for the state waters fishery?

58 Feet, Madam Chair. So thank you. So to participate in the state waters fishery anyways, you're talking about a relatively small vessel. Comparatively. I'm not supportive of the 3.

I wouldn't have been supportive of a change. I like consistency in regulation. 7 Is in other areas. 7 Works here. And we essentially just reallocated with proposal number 6's substitute language.

And I just don't see the need, given that opportunity that we just provided to get a jump start in the state waters fishery. So we're talking about the same group of boats here. Essentially, the way I see it. And so I just— I'm not supportive of a change to 3. I won't be supportive of the substitute language.

Other board discussion? Mr. Swenson.

In years past, we used to go bear hunting in Juneau all the time, and so we would take a boat out of Juneau and then go down, and we got into some pretty rough stuff. I'm kind of with the group here, part of the group. I think the 7 days is important because if you're trying to make an extra dollar and you're pushing it to this 3 days, I don't support that. I'm going to support the 7-day as it was originally written. Thank you.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you to my fellow board members for those comments. I'm not exactly sure exactly where I lie on this at this time either.

I do recognize and agree with some of my prior members who have mentioned consistency in regulations. As a user myself, it's always good to have a better, clearer understanding of what those regulations are, especially if they're able to be consistent throughout multiple areas.

I want to refer to RC 16 that was submitted by Ron Kavanaugh from Kodiak. There was a comment that says this is an attempt to fix a problem that's not clearly understood or identified, and I too am not sure whether or not I see a problem that needs fixed.

However, I'll continue to hear the discussion from other board members. I'll also note that the author of the original language. Falls Pass AC and RC9 supported this, as well as Sandpoint AC and RC10.

Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Wood. I was pretty ambivalent on this, um, until the chair made her comments, and I find that persuasive, so I will also not be supporting this. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I, I also think, looking back on personal comments and testimony in the audience, there was more people saying don't try to fix a problem that doesn't exist and leave it where it's at. So on that, I think, and based on what you— the— my other members have said, I'm, I'm leaning towards, uh, not supporting the new language.

Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll do cost real quick. Um, approval of this proposal may result in additional costs for persons wishing to participate in federal and state water fisheries. Approval of this The proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department.

I call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions, Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson or Department of Law?

No, Madam Chair. Captain McGrath? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 10 as amended with the substitute language in RC 7.

Irwin? No. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey?

No. Svenson? No. Wood? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Carpenter? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And seeing as how we're going to be hearing and deliberating proposal number 11 in March, I think that concludes deliberations. I don't believe we have any miscellaneous business to attend to today. Where's the commissioner?

Okay, we'll take a very short break and then we'll come back on the record in about 5 minutes, and I do mean 5 minutes. All right, thanks.

We're waiting for our webmaster so we can go back on the record live.

That could be disastrous.

All right, we are back on the record. The time is 9:37 and no miscellaneous business, so we're going to go ahead and just kind of go around the table and give folks an opportunity to chat. Commissioner, we'd like to start with you, please. Yeah, I would. I'd just like to share a brief announcement about a new fisheries scholarship program.

I'm sure many of you knew former Director of Commercial Fisheries Sam Raybong. Who passed away from cancer earlier this year. To honor Sam, some of his friends have created a memorial scholarship fund with the Alaska Community Foundation, which is a nonprofit organization unaffiliated with the department. Based on Sam's wishes, the scholarships will support Alaskan residents in the University of Alaska Southeast Applied Fisheries Associate's degree program. Sam believed this focus would serve Alaska well by developing a pipeline of applicants with practical skills and experience to move into the private or public sector jobs.

If you'd like For more information, please contact the Alaska Community Foundation. Thanks. I think that's a great tribute to a great director and a great guy. Other board comments? Mr. Chamberlain?

Yes, thank you. I'm going to take a minute of personal privilege, allow my work life to bleed over into the Board of Fish. As many of you know, I'm Deputy General Counsel for Chalista Corporation, and the Chalista region was hit particularly hard by Typhoon Haolong. We had 2 villages, for all intents and purposes, pretty much destroyed. 10 Others, or 10 altogether, adversely affected in major ways.

It's going to be a massive lift getting this done. And I think I already went— the folks within our region and the groups within our region have all mobilized and in a very big way to try to work for the benefit of our coastal communities. But I also wanted to take a moment to recognize some of the people in the industry that aren't close, don't have, you know, aren't terribly close, but have still stepped up and offered to do a lot. A lot of the seafood companies have offered bunkhouses in Bristol Bay and around the southeast or southwest area to house a lot of the people that are displaced by this Typhoon in an area that's more culturally centric to them. And a lot of the neighboring boroughs and school districts have stepped up big.

So I specifically want to recognize Trident Seafoods, Leader Creek Fisheries, Alaska General Seafoods, Silver Bay Seafoods, and then the Bristol Bay Borough and School District, Lake and Peninsula Borough, specifically Borough Manager Nathan Hill, who's going to get a hug from me every time he sees me for the rest of his life, and a special thank you to the governor's office for organizing and working with all these groups to get a coordinated response. And for that, I thank you all. And this industry stepped up in a very big way for a truly devastating scenario for our region. So thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain.

Any other board comments? Well, as always, I want to thank board support staff, department staff for coming and helping us get through our business. An extra special thank you to the ACs who participated and everyone who came here engaged either online or in person. Couldn't do it without you. And with that, I think we will go ahead and adjourn at 9:41.

And board members, if you wouldn't split too fast, we're going to do a quick updated picture out in the lobby here as soon as we adjourn. We, we are adjourned.