2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (2/9/25)

I would also like to speak to this. Kim.

Mr. Chair, I will keep this really short. We RC'd an RC. It is RC131. She can't hear you.

Mr. Chair, I will keep this really short. We RC'd an RC. It is RC131. Not even noticing it.

All right, good morning everybody. The time is 8:39. The day is Sunday, February 9th. We are going to go ahead and begin deliberations on our final group, Group 6, which is herring. There are 20 proposals in this group.

And we are going to go ahead and begin this morning with proposal number 171. 171, Please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Kyle Hebert. Herring Research Program Leader for the Southeast Region Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 171, 5AAC 27.160, Quotas and Guideline Harvest Levels for Southeastern Alaska Area. Madam Chair, moved to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, Proposal 171 is a department proposal. It would do 3 things. It would reduce the maximum harvest rate from 20% to 15% in Sitka Sound. It would increase the threshold for allowing a fishery from 25,000 tons to 26,000 tons. And it would change the equation for setting the harvest rate so that the range is 10% when that threshold of 26,000 tons, which is equivalent to 30% average on fish biomass, up to 15% at 51,000 tons, which is equivalent to 60% average on fish biomass.

And that's an overall reduction in harvest potential, shifting the range from 12 to 20% to 10 to 15%. The effect of the proposal would be to reduce potential harvest to levels to better protect the long-term, the long-term protection of the stock from falling to, falling to low biomass or low productivity states. For decades, the recommended convention for Pacific herring has been to use a 20% harvest rate— excuse me— paired with a threshold of 25% average unfish biomass. Recently— pardon me— recently, the department updated its analysis of average unfish biomass upon which the proposed threshold of 26,000 tons is based. After considering recent results, from British Columbia herring stock assessments, along with recommendations from broader studies of limit reference points for, for other prey species, the department concluded that lowering the maximum harvest rate to 15% and raising the threshold to 30% average unfished biomass is a prudent precaution.

The results from Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans stock assessments suggest that harvest rates of 20% may fail to maintain some herring stocks from falling low biomass or low productivity states, and that although harvest rates up to 20% could be adequate protection for some stocks, Alaska Department of Fish and Game does not do the same in-depth analysis that is conducted by DFO. And so we do not know if the Sitka Sound stock would be adequately protected until a comparable analysis could be done. It is expected that there would be some impact to the commercial fishery At most, there could be a 25% reduction in GHLs, guideline harvest levels. However, because actual harvest has often been below the GHLs, the actual economic impact may be less than 25%. And I'd refer board members to RC 2, Table 171-2, where that information is presented for the last 20 years.

The department submitted this proposal and supports it. Thank you, Mr. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

So I'm looking at the overall Sitka herring biomass in 2024. It's pretty darn big. It's considered one stock.

How many stocks were used in the Canadian analysis?

Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter. For the record, my name is Sherri Dressel. I'm the statewide herring fishery scientist. In British Columbia, they actually do what's called a management strategy evaluation, and they look at different harvest rates, and they do that for 5 separate stocks. So 5 different stocks in the analysis in British Columbia, and from what I could tell, all of those stocks had a different harvest rate applied to them based on how big those stocks were.

And so I'm trying to figure out for the life of me, you don't have an independent study of your own I understand that you're getting ready to do that.

And it's like, to me, this is like comparing apples to oranges.

And I guess, you know, if the overall biomass and the GHL that have been set the last 5 years were just barely above the threshold of 25,000 tons to open the fishery, I could totally understand doing something like this. But I have just not figured out why the department is bringing this proposal forward right now versus waiting for the next board cycle when you could have a lot of this analysis done or you would be able to present information to the board that speaks directly to this one stock. If you'd like to reply to that, please do.

Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter.

In—. So the 5 different stocks that Canada has done this analysis for, each of them have different natural mortality rates. They've had different environmental conditions. And like you said, they have a range of maximum rates that the science has found alternative harvest rates can support. There also, however, has been research as part of that which has suggested that when a herring population goes into a low productivity or low biomass state, that a maximum 20% harvest rate is not enough.

Sitka is clearly not at that point right now. Sitka is at a very high point. It's been a productive number of years so far, and so I fully recognize that it looks incongruous to recommend this now when the population is doing well. However, part of the research has suggested that herring can switch productivity states quickly, and the analysis, if we did it, even to do a partial analysis.

—Similar to what's been done in British Columbia—would take at least another 2 board cycles. So knowing that herring can switch quickly, and we've also watched— Strait of Georgia is their largest stock and likely the most comparable to Sitka in terms of productivity. The analysis for Strait of Georgia within the last 3 years has switched so that now the maximum harvest rate that they have found can maintain Strait of Georgia at this point is 15%. So, thank you for saying that. And, you know, when I looked at this study, and I didn't read it word— every single word, but I read as much of it as I could.

This 15% number, from what I can tell, is basically an average that they took between the 5 discrete stocks that were in their study. And it appears to me that that's the number that you chose to use. An average, but this is one stock. So why did you choose to do that?

Through the chair, Board Member Carpenter, uh, two reasons. The first one is that Strait of Georgia, which is the most comparable to Sitka, is now at 15%. The second one is that the range that they have found over their stocks' environmental conditions and natural mortality rates has ranged from 0% maximum up to 20% maximum. So we didn't take a full average, but we did look at all of those, and 15% was also in the middle of those since we don't know what environmental states Sitka may face. So there are two reasons for those.

And just, just a quick follow-up, so this applies to both 13(a) and 13(b), am I correct?

And 13, and one of those is the Craig Klawock Pound Fishery. Am I correct, or is it— am I wrong about that?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, for the record, Troy Tienas. There is— we're— there's two different areas there. What you're talking about for the Craig Pound Fishery is in 3A, 3B. It's a different district entirely and set with a different— it would fall under the next proposal we're discussing harvest rates. This is specific to the sick game.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Other board discussion? Mr. Swenson.

Has Canada's herring— I mean, has it gone down a lot from what it once was, or is it just kind of in the same, doing well, and Tell me about that.

Through the Chair, Mr. Svensson, the British Columbia stocks were at a low level in the 1970s and then they built over the 1980s and '90s. I think they peaked around sometimes, depending on the stock, there was some variability, but peaking in the '90s more or less, and then some of them declined and some of them maintained. So there's been kind of a mix of stock performance among those 5 stocks. Some have gone down quite a bit and some have not.

Madam Chair.

Just to follow up, well, it would seem to me that, you know, we might err— as you guys are suggesting, err on the side of conservation here. I would tend to support this. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. All right, I want to start out really basic, and, and the first one question that I have is in 5 AC 39.212 forage fish management plan. In this plan, herring aren't in it. All the others are. And we've heard a lot about forage fish and, and how they are a basic element to the food chain.

Why aren't herring considered a forage fish? In the management plan?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, generally speaking, herring are a forage fish, but they're not listed under that list of the Forage Fish Management Plan, more or less because of a grandfathering of— because there's existing herring fisheries that have happened for, for decades. So it was not included in that list. Okay. I'm not that familiar with herring per se. I did a trip down here last year, or last spring in May for 4 days, and I kind of touched, hung out in Sitka Sound at the peak of the spawn and got a sense of what it all looked like, and it really kind of blew my mind.

I'm very familiar with hooligan, or yulikon, and the role they play in the food chain, especially with the kings follow 'em in, and whatnot. So I guess my next question for you is, it's one stock in Sitka Sound, but how many different age groups do you think are coming in? And, and, and of those age groups, which ones are the spawners and which are the ones that seem to be getting targeted the most? This is three separate questions in the, in the commercial fishery.

To the chair, Mr. Wood, There are— so the targeted population would be age 3 and higher. Most of the mature population is age 3 to age 8. After age 8, the numbers of herring start to decline quite a bit. So there's not nearly as many post-age-8 fish in the population. So age 3 through through age 8 is the primary target and composition of the mature population.

Okay, so in your— in the management plan as it existed, it was clear to me through talking with the area manager in there that you were still pursuing this fishery very conservatively. And, um, and actually I could note through the day on the Kestrel and all the stuff that we did that there was a little bit of like, wow, maybe, well, whatever, that we gotta be really careful here, but because we're not seeing the biomass come back like we'd expected that like last year, okay? So I got that. I also assume that you're probably already managing pretty cautiously. So whether it's in the books or not, currently you're probably managing very cautiously.

That's a question.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, you're correct in that assessment is that we do have the forecast and that takes place before the season. We look at the caveats of that forecast and it's explained well to us by my colleagues to the right. And, and once the herring come in and we're leading up to the fishery, we do As was explained in Mr. Hebert's oral presentation and oral report that he gave earlier this meeting, we do more of a qualitative, qualitative analysis of the biomass of the herring that has come in to spawn using our state research vessel. And through our experience with doing that over many, many years, we kind of get an idea if that biomass we're seeing is what we would expect based on the forecast. Or if it's less than what we expect based on the forecast, and we make adjustments in our management approach based on those surveys.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I also recognize that market dictates how much they're gonna harvest. So if there's not much of a market, they're not gonna hit a GHL that's there, and they haven't been. I don't know what percentage they've actually been taking out from their GHL. You might be able to throw that out there.

But the harvest has been relatively, well, not even coming close based on the market right now. There's only so much that they can do. But do you look at the time in which you start doing the test sets and then the harvest to make sure it's spread out through the run? As opposed to early, middle, or late?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yes, we take into account the distribution of harvest through the Sound, the distribution through time, the time the spawning takes place.

We do consider that in our management approach. So, and you know, we are looking at Essentially the, the quality of the herring, you know, where we can prosecute fisheries and, you know, different, different times where we've taken how the fishery occurs. If, you know, it's all the northern part of the Sound, we try to distribute it to the southern part of the Sound if we can. So I guess to answer your question, yes, we try to distribute the harvest among, through the Sound and through time. In regard to your prior question, what we were looking at as far as what percent of the GHL we've harvested, on average about 60% of the GHL from 2005 to 2024.

Okay. I'll let other members ask questions for now. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make a few remarks on the Forage Fish Management Plan.

Since Mr. Wood asked about that, so as Mr. Hebert mentioned, you know, herring are not listed as one of the species in the Forage Fish Management Plan. But for the species that are listed in the plan, you know, the intent of that plan is to prevent fisheries from occurring on those species unless the board has otherwise authorized them. So there, there are a couple of smelt fisheries around the state that the board has has authorized. And that's one of the species. There's 9 species groups listed in the plan.

So I just wanted to provide that background for you. Thank you. Thanks, Forrest, for that. I understand it, but it is kind of a glaring omission when we think about, you know, the role of herring in the ecosystem and the trophic sort of relationships. Are there genetic sampling that occur on these stocks throughout the season or on the stock, I should say?

Madam Chair, there's, there's not currently studies underway, but there have been some genetic studies in the past on herring in Southeast Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska. Those earlier studies have been able to separate, identify genetic differentiation between, on the scale of Southeast Alaska from British Columbia, from Puget Sound. On that level. Later, some later studies have been focused more on just Southeast stocks, and there hasn't been a comprehensive study that's looked at all the stocks, but there have been some studies that included a genetic component that may have looked at 2 or 3 different stocks in the region. They found differences genetically in some cases, not genetic differentiation in other cases, so it's kind of unclear what the relationship genetic relationship is just in Southeast alone.

So there's been no finding that Sitka Sound has had separate genetic components. When were those genetic studies done, or when was that sampling done? You mentioned in the past, but I'm just kind of getting—. I think, Madam Chair, the earlier studies that were— those were, I think, in the 1980s to '90s. But the more recent ones were in, I think, in the 2000s, mid-2000s, late 2000s even.

You know, I'm just— and how do they differentiate between the stocks in Canada that you mentioned, the 5, or you and Member Carpenter that we were having a discussion about? How are those differentiated and considered in the study?

To the Chair, as far as I'm not completely familiar with genetics in Canada, but I do not believe that there have been genetics which have distinguished those 5 stocks.

And the study of genetics has changed dramatically. And so the department actually has shown support to other researchers and have actually given samples to researchers to try to get some of the newer genetics newer genetic methods to be able to be applied, but we don't have those at this point. Thank you. I'm just, I'm just trying to get an idea of this because we heard in public testimony and, and Committee of the Whole that there's at least 3 in the Sound, and unfortunately we can't manage that granularity, um, at least not yet that I'm aware of, or we're not doing it anyways. So I just kind of want to take that into consideration, especially since we've seen, you know, other stocks in Southeast that just haven't recovered over time for whatever reason.

They were present at one time and they no— are no longer, or they are extremely small. And so herring, in my experience— and granted, it's not a lot— are kind of sensitive, and they can kind of be easily wiped out, and it seems to take a long time for them to come back once that happens. And so I think that that a conservative approach, for no other than that reason, is appropriate. And, you know, I don't know a lot about herring, but they seem to be rather fickle.

But when they show up, they show up. Anyways, I think I'm pretty comfortable with the department's approach at this time.

So I think I'll be I think I will be supportive of it. Just another question in that space, though. What is the typical margin of error in your forecast?

Through the chair, or to the chair, actually, just this year we have developed confidence intervals on our estimated mature biomass and our forecast for the, for the first time. And it would take me a moment to look those up to give you, to give you a range. But that is information that I could get for you. Okay. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. So with, with the way things are changing, the water in the wild, in the ocean, and no, and, and understanding that herring are smaller to larger all the way up the coast, the togiaq herring being the size of humpies.

Do herring go, with the water temperature and whatnot, always come back to the same place, or are they actually moving up into these different areas?

Maybe that's an unrelated question, but it's my curiosity on the herring.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. I, I think what you're asking is, do herring move from spawning location to spawning location or move around the region?

They're— herring are— have a fairly high fidelity rate to their spawning grounds. There is probably some movement between spawning grounds. When I say spawning grounds, I mean areas of the size of Sitka Sound or Kishkeeshkat Island. These are the spawning stock level. We have not done analysis to show the extent of movement or strain.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada has done those kinds of studies through tagging studies. And they, they found between their 5 stocks that there could be strain anywhere from 5 to 25% to other spawning grounds, meaning the fidelity rate to their own spawning ground is 75 to 95%. So there's some movement for certain. It's a little unclear just how much it is in Southeast.

Okay. Last follow-up. But given the fact in public testimony we're hearing about the increase of whales coming in because of the food source in there. And do you take that into account at all? I mean, the jump of whales going from 50 to 150 to 200 seems rather significant.

And then the stories of the whales, how they just strip the kelp of the eggs and how they actually just bulldoze her sideways to get the spawn on the edge of the seashore.

Is that taken into consideration early season when you're— seeing the spawn?

Through the chair, Member Wood, specifically in Sitka Sound, the, the model that we use estimates the natural mortality year to year. And so that would include mortality if there were mortality, say, from humpback whales.

As far as the other piece that contributes to that is actually the harvest rate strategy. The harvest rate strategy and the forecast work together. And so the work that has been done in Canada actually incorporates the forecast error into the harvest rate strategy, and that's part of the reason that the harvest rate strategy in this case may be lower, is because it actually accounts for variations over and under predictions by the model. Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And for the department, there was some discussion in public testimony the other day over concerns with overestimation of biomass. And, and when— and my concern in that is if there's a, if there's a significant, significant overestimation, what's the what's the risk of crashing the return? Just, is there enough error in there? For instance, I think there was a couple years where the overestimation was fairly substantial compared to the actual returning biomass.

Through the chair, there's First, I guess I would like to refer to RC129. That was something that the department put in that looks at— it looks like there's 4 different graphs. It looks at the percent over and underestimate, and it also looks at the exact magnitude of that. So there are 2.

2 Bar graphs, I believe it's Figure 3 and 4, that are probably worth looking at. And so there are— yes, 2024 was a large overforecast. On average, the model performance has been that we underforecast on average by about 12%. We also underforecast more often than we overforecast. But we have had 2 large overforecasts in 2012 and 2022.

2024. The harvest rate strategy is actually part of— it's in response to these over- and underestimates. So in other words, it looks at, on average, how do you do over time, and can your harvest strategy safely account for times when you over-forecast? The other thing that I think goes specifically to your question is that you will see in— actually, any of those first 3 graphs that as the biomass goes up, as your estimate goes up, the variability goes up. That's a statistical concept and that's what you would expect.

And so you'll see in the Figure 3, you'll see that the overestimate was the largest in terms of tons. If you look at Figure 4, the last figure, you'll see that if you look at proportion of the biomass, you really do get a different picture. It's still a large overforecast, but it's, but it's not the same, I guess, in terms of tonnage. If you take the amount that we overforecasted off, so you would still end up with, and I think Mr. Hebert may be able to speak to this, but you still end up with a biomass that is one of the top 3 or 4 that we have estimated in Sitka Sound. The remaining fish would still be a biomass that's one of the top 4 in Sitka Sound over the last 50 years.

Thank you. What, you know, I think given that sort of significant overestimate in 2024, I think we got lucky that their fleet, that the market just wasn't there and the fleet didn't go out and hammer them. What would have, could have been the impact, future impacts, if they had?

Uh, to the Chair, 2024, it was a bit of a perfect storm. There was, there was a great deal of uncertainty in our egg estimate. There was also a great deal of uncertainty in our age composition. A large age 3 year class came in and the environment changed. We knew about 3 of 4 of those.

We could see that in our data. That was information in addition to giving this forecast to the managers as Mr. Tinas described. We also gave a considerable amount of information. We let them know that this forecast was more uncertain than most. We gave a sensitivity analysis which said if our data was wrong by this amount and in these ways, this would be your forecast.

So the management had that information going into the season. And then in-season management is an important part of our precautionary management strategy. And my understanding, which Mr. Tienes can talk to more, is that they knew going into the season from discussing with fleet members that there was not an intention to take a large amount. And I think our exploitation rate ended up being 5, 7%, something like that. Thank you.

Appreciate that. I mean, I guess I, I'm concerned that there are the increased frequency and possible perfect storm conditions, or there could be an increased frequency and perfect storm conditions, if for no other reason than just the variability in the environmental conditions and the rapid changes that we see in that space. So again, I think this just kind of underscores my support and comfort level with going forward with a more conservative management scheme. Any other board discussion? Mr. Swenson, and then Mr. Bowers.

Well, looking at that graph, it looks like for 20 years you guys were pretty right on from '95 to 2015. And then all of a sudden, you know, this big variation has happened. Is that mainly, I am assuming largely because there's not the market that there used to be for them, and so they're not taking near as many of the herring, is that not correct?

Through the chair, Mr. Svenson, if you— I'm guessing the graph you are looking at is the third one in there.

And if that is the case, that is because that is in tonnage. And the size of the forecast were smaller. So the percent that we were— or the amount of tons that we were off was also smaller. If you look at the last graph, it shows that there is actually— it goes up and down. That is because it is relative to the size of the population.

Population at that time. I was looking at the first graph and looking at— that's what I was looking at, at that variation. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I'm, uh, I think the department's been doing well, and, and, and looking at the history of it and looking at the— and having been there in person checking out the fishery, I was impressed with, uh, how You were actually out there every day looking. You were interacting with the community, the tribe, talking. And at the same time, you're being— I believed it was conservative. And so I really, when I saw this, I approached it as, why? Why more?

Because, I mean, you already appear to be very conservative.

However, some other proposals in here reflect that you may not be— you know, the feeling is you may not be conservative enough. I'm not sure I can go that far given the fact that this is a forage fish, you know, whether it's in the book or not. It— and things are changing as much as they are. I do appreciate the caution that the department is working with here. I also thought to myself last year, if they did hit that GHL on a year when the— when it didn't come back like you thought, that would maybe not be so good.

So anyhow, I applaud what's been happening already. I think it's a perfect— the other perfect storm is there are fish here. Everybody's getting fish as opposed to not and fighting more over them. Nonetheless, I think caution is needed or needs to continue. So I support this, what the department is recommending.

Mr. Carpenter. I'm going to be brief and then I will do the costs.

The way this proposal is written, there is very similar characteristics within this proposal that the department brought forward that were submitted the last two board cycles from somebody else that you didn't support both of those times. It's very strange to me that it's happening now because I know that information in Canada was available when you took the position that you're not taking today. So having said that, I don't see that there's any reason that this should go forward at this time. I mean, my real point is, I mean, my real thought is that this should be tabled and that the board should consider this in the future when the department could present information about the Sitka Sound discrete stock that is really not the same as the study information that's In the Canadian report, sacro fishing will never be the same. The Sitka sacro fishery today is never going to be the way it was 15 years ago.

When you look around the state at Sitka, Prince William Sound, there's a new population of herring that's exploding in Kayak Island in the North Gulf Coast, Kodiak, Dutch Harbor. Togiak has the biggest biomass it's ever seen with zero harvest. There's obviously something going on in the ocean that is making the productivity of these herring do very well, and it's not just happening in one spot. So I don't see any reason why this should move forward at this time.

I know the chair doesn't like to table things. And but I do think that it's very inappropriate that you bring this proposal forward because the board has been criticized before by creating OEGs for king salmon and sockeye out of thin air. And in my opinion, this is exactly what the department is doing right now. So I'm not going to support this and I'll do cost approval. This proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery.

And approval of this The proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I'll call the question. Thanks. Before I recognize the question, I mean, I think we're looking at correlative stuff. I mean, there hasn't been a market, and maybe that has something to do with presence and rebate.

Pounds of stocks. I don't know. 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. And Sergeant Hensis? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action. Final action on Proposal 171. Ziray? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Godfrey? No. Svenson. Yes.

Wood. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Carpenter.

No. That motion carries 5 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 172.

Madam Chair, proposal 172, 5AAC 27.190, Herring Management Plan for Southeastern Alaska Area. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this is also a department proposal similar to Proposal 171. It would reduce the maximum allowable harvest rate from 20% to 15%, but in this case for all other Southeast Alaska stocks, not, not just Sitka. There is considerably less information for most other Southeast Alaska stocks than for Sitka, and these stocks are also much smaller. So lowering the harvest rate to align with Sitka would be prudent until we have analysis to support using a higher maximum harvest rate. Like, excuse me, like Proposal 171, this is considered a precaution because analysis to determine the average unfished biomass has not been done for most of these stocks.

So we do not know precisely what stock levels are relative to the 30% average unfished biomass benchmark. The impact to commercial fisheries is expected to be relatively small. This is because other stocks in the region infrequently, infrequently reach the level that allows the maximum 20% harvest rate. They must be at very high levels to do so. And so for most years in the past, harvest rates for these stocks have been less than 15%, though not always.

And I'll refer board members to Table 172-2 in RC2 for, for that information. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

What's the threshold to open this fishery? Is it 25,000 tons or 20?

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, there's several fisheries, several different stocks. They all have their own threshold. They range from 2,000 tons to 6,000 tons depending on the stock.

Is this percentage drop going to hamper the ability for the department to open up the Craig and Kewaak Pound fishery? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter. No, it would not have an effect on opening the fishery. In Table 172-2 of staff comments, it lists which years in the past would have been affected by this, but because of the way the kelp allocation tables are set up for that fishery, there is very few years where there would be an impact to that fishery at all. There there was a couple of years, I think, where there would be— it would reduce it from the maximum kelp allocation.

So really, there really would be little impact to that fishery. But there were years it wouldn't open.

Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I don't believe so. From my look at the history of the fishery, I don't think the fishery would have closed under these scenarios.

Other board discussion? I'm going to reference my comments. To some extent on the previous proposal. Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'll just reference my past comments as well.

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 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. Sergeant Pences?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 172. Chamberlain. Yes.

Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Zareh. Yes. Benson.

Yes. Godfrey. No. Carpenter. No.

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

Thanks. Proposal number 173. Madam Chair, for the record, Troy Tinnis, Area Management Coordinator for Division of Commercial Fisheries. Proposal 173, 5 AAC 27.160, Quotas and Guideline Harvest Levels for Southeastern Alaska. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 173 based on the action on Proposal 171.

I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 173. Proposal 174.

Madam Chair, Proposal 174, 5AAC 27.160, Sitka Sound Commercial Sack Roe Herring Fishery. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 174 based on action taken in Proposal 171. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 174. Proposal number 175.

Madam Chair, proposal 175, 5AAC 27.195, Sitka Sound Commercial Sac Roe Herring Fishery. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would set a cap for the harvest in the Siksika-Saskatchewan fishery of 15,000 tonnes. The effect of the proposal would be to reduce potential commercial harvest in some years, particularly those years of high abundance. In years of high abundance, that is greater than 75,000 tonnes, there would be additional herring left in the water, which may benefit the ecosystem or other user groups, but to an unknown extent. I'll reference Table 175-5 for that information about the impact to the fishery. Such a cap would result in reducing the harvest rate when the population is above 75,000 tons.

The department is neutral on the proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion?

Anyone? Mr. Carpenter. I mean, I don't support this.

The— this is an arbitrary number. That's—. I mean, we've just passed Proposal 171, which gives the department clear— a clear way to manage this fishery. So I'm not supporting it. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I'm going to say the same thing. I mean, the department's managing this fishery. That's what we're—. That we're giving them credit on that. And not only credit, but we're seeing that it's been being done well.

And I'm not inclined to just put a random cap on something. Thank you. Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members and their comments. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department.

I call the question.

Question's been called. E&O. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

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

Sergeant Vincent? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 175. Wood.

No. Godfrey. No. Carlson-Vandort. No.

Zarey. No. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter.

No. Svensson. No. That motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 176. Madam Chair, Proposal 176, 5AAC 27.160, quotas and guideline harvest levels for Southeastern Alaska area. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 176 based on its action on 175. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on 176. Proposal 177.

Madam Chair, Proposal 177, 5AAC 27.160, quotas and guideline harvest levels for Southeastern Alaska area. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 177 based on its action on Proposal 175. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 177. Proposal 178.

Madam Chair, Proposal 178, 5AC27.150, waters closed to herring fishing in Southeast, Southeast Alaska area. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Anthony Wallach.

I'm the Sitka Assistant Area Management Biologist. This proposal would expand the closed waters for the commercial herring fishing in Sitka Sound to include the waters of Section 13A south of the latitude of Point Cackle and in Section 13B north of the latitude of Dorothy Narrows. Commercial opportunity would be significantly reduced or eliminated in most years. This would likely result in not achieving the commercial sac roe guideline harvest level in a given year. A reduction in commercial harvest may benefit the ecosystem and other user groups by an unknown extent.

Herring spawn activity in Sitka Sound typically occurs during the months of March and April, and the Sitka Sound herring sac roe commercial fishery has only taken place during the months of March and April. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. Designating an area as a fish reserve does not automatically close the waters to commercial fishing. The board would need to explicitly specify what harvest activities would be allowed in this area. Additionally, if the board did adopt this proposal and create a fish reserve, the outcome would be dependent on approval of the legislature.

Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. Again, just having had the luxury of being able to get in a plane and fly over this last year, I was really struck at the area that was set aside for subsistence in front of town, close to the shoreline, where and around all the islands was able to fly around and see all the different sets out there.

And I And I was— it blew me away. That with all of the spawn in the water and the color, it was just fantastic. I just was like, all of a sudden, here's a proposal that asks for everything out there. Kind of, kind of a big ask. And I'm like, that doesn't seem very reasonable.

So I'm not supporting it.

There were no A.C.'s in favor of this, and there were two opposed. And for the record, thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and go through the subsistence review for this particular area. I will reference my comments from yesterday specific to this, but just a couple of points. This is not— this isn't a non-subsistence area. No.

Is this a traditionally customary and traditionally used for subsistence? Yes. The board has determined that herring and herring spawn in the waters of 13A and 13B north of the latitude of Aspen Aspid Cape are customary and traditionally used. Can a portion of stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes, it can.

And what the amount necessary for, uh, reasonably necessary for subsistence— there's a range of 136,000 to 227,000 pounds of herring spawn in 13A and 13B north of Aspid Cape. So having said that, I'll do cost approval. 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 the additional cost to the department. And I'd call the question. Question's been called.

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

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

Sergeant Pences? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 178. Ziray?

No. Chamberlain? No. Godfrey? No.

Svenson? No. Wood? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Carpenter? No. That motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Proposal 179.

Madam Chair. Proposal 179, 5 AAC 27.150, waters closed to herring fishing in Southeast Alaska area. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, closed waters for the commercial herring fishing in Sitka Sound would be expanded by approximately 0.5 square nautical miles and would include the waters of Permisola Bay. The reduced fishing area may result in not achieving the commercial sacro guideline harvest level. A reduction in commercial harvest may benefit the ecosystem and other user groups by an unknown extent. Permisola Bay is a known subsistence harvest area and can be important for providing harvest opportunity.

And since 2015, the commercial herring sacro fishery had openings in the proposed closed waters in 4 out of the 10 years. From 2018 to 2020, herring spawn distribution shifted to the northern areas of Sitka Sound, and during these years, according to the subsistence household survey, these areas of eastern and Promiscilla Bays became more important places to harvest herring roe, and it has remained an important subsistence harvest area in recent years. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I'm not sure which one of you can answer this question, but so when I look at the amounts reasonably necessary for herring spawn, it's a pretty big number. And I'm wondering if that number is broke down specific to this bay.

Is there any way to maybe, maybe tell me the amount that's being harvested in all of Sitka Sound? And then if you have a breakdown for this bay, if you could tell me that number.

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, on the amount being harvested through all of Sitka Sound, you can find on page 275, Figure 179-2, and it ranges going back to 2002 anywhere from— looks like a little over 350,000 to a low in 2020 of— I think it was around 20,000 pounds. The ANS is set for all of the Sitka Sound area, for the entire C&T area. Do you have a breakdown of just the bay that we're talking about? Do you have any idea through harvest information how much of that is being harvested in that one spot? Sure.

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, the— our— the harvest amounts that are in the chart are estimated to account for the harvesters that we don't talk to that we know are out there harvesting. So we don't have that. We can't do that same level of analysis when we get down to an individual level. So I have some reported harvests within, within Promiscua Bay, but it's also— it would be just a minimum. It's not an estimated account.

So thanks.

Mr. Godfrey, can the department tell me how many miles of spawn were observed last year in closed waters?

Through the chair, um, enclosed waters, there was approximately 26 nautical miles of spawn. Thank you. I'll be opposed. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Um, I recall flying over this, even poking our nose into it actually on the Kestrel, and saw 2 sets in there at the time. Having talked to harvesters, it sounds like there's even areas in this bay that they don't want to put their branches because the eggs could end up smelling kind of sulfury, was what one person even said to me.

I— when you— my impression is looking at this fishery and how the department in Sitka is working with the tribes to understand be sure that they stay 200 yards away from sets and be respectful of where these sets are and where subsistence are. I think that's a pretty unique thing from what I saw. And I'd also add, if the herring just happened to be in there one year and if this is closed off, How many more, like, test sets will be the next thing we're gonna discuss here, but how many more test sets are you gonna have to do to figure out where there's adequate spawn elsewhere in the Sound compared to, say, in that bay right there where they decide to all slow down and move in and start setting? And I mean, is it also just a function of just practicality?

The, the— I'm going to leave it with that. I have— please answer that question.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, um, and that's a difficult question to answer as far as how many more test sets there would be or how long the— much longer the commercial fishery could go or what, you know, the exact opportunity taken away. Um, it is— would be a reduction in area, and in some years it could result in the reduction of.

Of areas we could test that or look for herring. But it's variable amongst years. Thank you. And when was the last commercial opener in there, in, in Promiscilla Bay?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, the last time the area was open was in 2021. However, nobody fished in there at that time.

In 2017-2018 season, or 2018 was the last year there was any measurable harvest in that area. Okay, thank you. I just, you know, having seen the 16 square miles of terrain that have already been set aside for subsistence only, I mean, I realize that things are changing and sand and all that can influence the eggs. Sulfur taste can influence the eggs, but still, It totally isolate another area off to a user group seems to be a little bit beyond.

Couple comments, I guess. What's the relative area where the commercial harvest can occur? What is the space that they can, that they can fish in? I mean, I'm looking at this map and I mean, if we're looking at relative sizes here, it looks like these seiners can move around and are highly mobile. Seems like they've got a lot of opportunity.

Opportunity and alternatives.

Um, Madam Chair, um, if we're referring to the Figure 178.1, is, is probably the best representation we have that's readily accessible, the total area that harvest can occur in. And you can see the lines there from Point Cackle all the way down to Aspen Cape. However, I would say that in most years, the majority of the harvest occurs more in the central part of that, that area in the Sitka Sound proper. Um, and, and we do have fisheries that have occurred up in Salisbury Sound and fisheries that have occurred down in the lower part of, of, um, the area that can fish in, in Windy Pass, Crow Pass, Readout Bay, and that. So you're right, it's, it's, uh, the, the commercial fleet is, is mobile, and we also look to distribute the harvest through the sound too.

Yeah, thank you for that. I mean, I'm a bit torn on this one, frankly, because I recognize that this, this area has become more important for subsistence use, especially as of late. We heard that just from the department and also through pretty extensive public testimony in the space. It's a small area, it's not a lot. That being said, I mean, when you close waters, fish have tails, they're going to move.

So they could be there one year and it might be useful, and then 2 years later it's not. And then is the question, oh, we come back and ask for more closed waters.

This is a fairly discrete space. And just looking over, you know, my experience in Southeast Alaska and some of the actions that the board took what seems like a million years ago last week, I mean, it is not uncommon for the board to recognize, you know, heavily used local harvest areas and, and restrict commercial activity in them. So I could probably go either way on this. I'm leaning towards supporting it because of the amount of, you know, local knowledge that was shared around the space and its harvest use at this time. But I'm interested in other board member impressions.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, uh, the Sitgrease and well over 100 public comments in favor of this and the Petersburg AC and about 10, a little over 10 public comments were opposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zirin.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm, I'm likewise slightly leaning yes on this one. I do have some concerns over how often we're going to be adjusting a closed area and the precedent this sets. But if the fish are shifting, that's something we should take into consideration.

But I do have some concerns over having to shift this every cycle to do that. I would prefer some consistency, but The fish don't operate at our convenience, so I have to also understand that. I'm slightly leaning yes as well on this one, but it's very close for me. To that point, yeah, I mean, there is opportunity to adjust it if things change, and they always do. So it would be a very simple proposal, in my opinion, to to open it back up.

Mr. Swenson, then Mr. Godfrey. I would tend to agree with Mr. Wood. There's quite a bit of closed area, and once you close more areas, I don't know, where does it stop? And the fish may be there, they may not be there. You go the other way too and say that if they're there, well, then you could do something to open it or close it, but you can go either way on that to be able to change that.

So I'm leaning to a no on this. Mr. Godfrey. Yeah, during public testimony, you know, somebody recited, uh, all of the adverse actions taken by the department and/or the board over the last 15 years, and, um, it's been a steady chipping away, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. The amount of water that's already closed to them is substantial. And I would also, interestingly enough, Mr. Chamberlain just cited, you know, made a comment about having to keep moving where the fish are moving and closing areas accordingly, which is true.

And you said that, you know, fish do have tails and they do swim, relocate. And I find Mr. Chamberlain's point more compelling than he did because that's another reason I posed it while he's vacillating there. But he makes a good point and I hadn't thought of that. And And I think that's less than ideal.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, okay, two things. One is, it's been my understanding listening about how this fishery works is if the fish going into these bays isn't just a one-and-done, like one day they can be in there, they can fish it, the next day it'll fill right back up again. You could— and it'll keep coming back. That being said, I don't think it's like, oh, they're there and then they're never back there again, even within the season.

Secondly, I'll just— I'd like to note the allocative criteria here, allocation criteria. I mean, first of all, subsistence has priority, but they still can go over there at any, at any time. No one's keeping them out. The history of each personal use sport, guided sport, or commercial fishery, they both have been in there being managed throughout you know, statehood. The number of residents and non-residents who participate in each fishery in the past, the number of residents and non-residents, and the number of residents that can reasonably be expected to participate in it.

The residents are able to go over there at any time and use that fishery. The importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain fish and personal use and family consumption. Yes, I believe that's happening currently. And, and will not be limited whether it is, you know, isolated from another user group. The availability of alternative fishery resources— yes, it's, uh, commercial fishermen can move around, and then they can, um, and they have the ability to move other places more so than, uh, residents, that is for sure.

But sometimes you might move them out of a, an area of high density to an area of lower density and potentially have more impact. And then the importance of these, uh, fishery and providing recreational opportunity. Um, clearly it, it— I, I don't think it's just recreational, but it's people, people that live in Sitka do go out and set branches as well. And I would say the importance of each fishery to the economy of the state. And so the commercial fishery, this commercial fishery has proven to be important to the economy of the state.

So with that, I'll just leave it with that. I'm leaning towards no on this. And listening to the discussion, I'm leaning harder yes at this point, frankly, especially in going through that allocation criteria. So the SITKA AC supported— after 3 meetings, I heard, ended up supporting this 10 to 4. And it was a recognition that through those— their surveys, um, that it has become one of the most used areas for subsistence.

And I would argue that the subsistence economy of this state is well demonstrated with this particular fishery. Um, in fact, it's probably one of the most impactful and expansive subsistence economies in this state. These eggs that are harvested in this sound, in the closed waters area, and in Permisla Bay, which Again, the public testimony has demonstrated as being more heavily used and has been— is very important to the community for subsistence harvest. Goes all over the state of Alaska from Barrow out to Dutch Harbor. I know that it's gone to Kodiak.

I've gotten eggs myself and sent them out down the peninsula.

Peninsula and to the, to the southwestern part of the state. So it's not just at this point— I think this one is a really exceptional circumstance of this subsistence economy in the state of Alaska, and not just what is a partially used, 4 out of the last 10 years, commercial area. Like I said, I think the more I've listened to this discussion, the more hard over I've become. Yes, that this is important, and not only for that reason but also because of the safety considerations that we also heard in public testimony This is an easily, relatively easily accessible, you know, calmer waters area. It's not out in the open.

You can get there in a small open water skiff and you can harvest safely in this area. At least that's what I heard in public testimony. I don't think it's unreasonable, especially considering the low use that this, this bay has had in the commercial fishery in at least the last 10 years. And I'm a solid yes at this point. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I likewise, I think Mr. Wood's comments have swayed me a little more to the yes on this one. And so as I speak, maybe I'll sway members or Member Godfrey harder to the no. But the— but no, the cultural and subsistence components of this herring fishery cannot be understated. We had herring and herring eggs out in Antioch when I was a kid.

And that was a big deal for that. And it does a lot to bridge a lot of the gaps between communities throughout the state. And I am 100% on board with that. And so when it comes to that allocation criteria, boy, that swings it hard into the yes. I would like to alleviate a lot of concerns.

I think I would recommend to the public and potential proposers, if you are going to ask for additional area, maybe look at giving up some ground on the back end. Just so it doesn't seem like a territorial grab. But I— given the wide— the very— how very important this is. I understand what these resources mean to the people and to the subsistence users. And so with that, I'm a fairly solid yes now.

Thanks. I'll also just reference allocated criteria number 4 with the availability of alternative fisheries resources. There's not a lot of egg harvest that happens anywhere else in the state. And that's, that's really important, I think, and should be underscored in this discussion. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, I'd just like to point out that I'm— nobody here is advocating restricting subsistence in this bay. It's still open continually throughout the year. Understood. Thank you.

Mr. Zarey. Yeah, in my notes, I have a lot of notes of the many people that testified in favor of this proposal. And, you know, I don't just want to keep adding you know, areas of protection, but this, this one seemed really unique, and the reasons I heard for protecting it more for subsistence were considerable. And I'm definitely be— I'm going to be voting yes on this one. Thank you.

Thank you. I will also reference RC-126 that I submitted which is a very, I think, conservative map of where these eggs are distributed. It only accounts for the state of Alaska. But I know also through public testimony and personal experience that these eggs go to all points south and connect former Alaskans with their home. So any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? [Speaker] Yeah, I haven't chimed in on this, so I'll say a little bit.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER_HART] You know, obviously we went through the subsistence criteria. This is obviously an important place for people to provide for subsistence uses, but when I look at the amount of commercial harvest that's actually taken place in there over the last 7, 8, 9 years, it's minimal at best.

I did hear in Committee of the Whole and both in public testimony that people are currently going in there and utilizing this area for subsistence. So my takeaway from that was that there wasn't really a conflict necessarily, and that this was an area that's currently open throughout the spawn to be able to go in and gather your subsistence eggs. And so I'm just not really sure that a set-aside right now is quite necessary because I don't really see a problem that exists. If there was a problem that existed, I would definitely err on the side of the subsistence user. I just, I just don't see that necessarily.

And if people would have come up and said we can't go in there because the harvest on the commercial side is too much, they're interfering with, you know, our subsistence activities. I just didn't hear that. So I think that this is kind of a, a unique situation around Sitka, and obviously I, I take it very seriously. But I mean, until it can be demonstrated that there is a real conflict, I just can't support it. So 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'd call the question. Question's been called. E&O. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

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

No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Finches? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 179.

Chamberlain? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zeray?

Yes. Svenson? No. Godfrey? No.

Carpenter? No. Wood? No. That motion fails, uh, 3 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 180. Madam Chair, proposal 180, 5 AAC 27.110, Fishing Seasons for Southeastern Alaska Area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, the latitude would be the actual location of Aspid Cape. The latitude described in regulation would be moved approximately 0.6 nautical miles south. This will improve the clarity of the southern boundary of the Sitka Sound herring sac roe fishery. The department submitted and supports this proposal. An alternative solution would be to delete the reference to Aspid Cape.

So just the latitude currently described in regulation defines the southern boundary. Madam Chair. More discussion.

Mr. Carpenter. I mean, This is somewhat housekeeping in nature, the way I take it. And I mean, can you just touch on how big of an area this adjustment is? And in the— is it in tenths of a mile?

Through the chair, yeah, this would move that southern boundary about 0.6 nautical miles south. Okay, well, I mean, if the department thinks it's important, I don't— I haven't heard any reason not to do it, so I'll support it. Mr. Wood. I didn't hear any public comment one way or the other, so I'm inclined to support what the department's offering here. I think I will note that my notes state that Petersburg ASC was supportive unanimously.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Zarek.

Oh, excuse me, Madam Chair. 3 ACs were in favor and none were against.

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. Do you know, Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

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

No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Finches? No, Madam Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 180. Carpenter?

Yes. Zeray?

Turn your microphone on, please, Mr. Zeray. Okay. In favor? Yes. That's a yes from Zeray.

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

Wood? Yes. Benson. Yes. Chamberlain.

Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Madam Chair. Proposal number 181. Madam Chair, proposal 181, 5AAC 27.195, Sitka Sound commercial sacro-herring fishery.

Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 181 with substitute language found in 196. Second and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language in RC 196 in lieu of the original proposal 181. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, the substitute language is found in RC 196, would request that there is a— to maintain the.

Log of number, size, and location of release sets and allow no more than 3 release sets in one day during commercial opening.

The department does have some concerns with this, and I believe Mr. Peterson has something to add to it as well. Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson. Yeah, Madam Chair, the maintenance of a log number, size, and location of release sets is either administrative or data gathering, which are both under the authority of the commissioner. Specifically in 16.0505.0, the gathering of data is statutorily committed to the discretion of the commissioner.

Putting limits on test sets, you know, provided it's connected to some fishery, you know, development of the fishery type reason, would be within the discretion of the board.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Understood. And I, I recognize that we can't compel the department to create programs or do particular logbooks, especially if it is going to have a fiscal impact on the department. The board does it from time to time and has been exceptional in my experience. I think we did it once at a— a Lucian Islands area meeting a couple of years ago.

But I do think that there is valuable information to be gathered in that space. I am less concerned with the 3 release sites in one day during a commercial meeting. I think that's my error, and when the substitute language was drafted, it was my intention just to capture the maintenance of a log number, size, location of the release sets. So if that makes it more palatable to the board, I would entertain that amendment. But I do recognize that we don't have that necessary authority, but it is essentially a request.

Mr. Carpenter. I don't actually have much problem with the request. I think that passing or not passing this proposal and just putting on the record that the board feels that they would like to have this information gathered if it's— there's no undue burden put on the department. Could potentially satisfy some of the people that are, you know, looking at this information from CITCA, and it could also be an important thing to, you know, have a record— some recorded information of as time goes on and management changes. So I'm going to vote this down just because I think that would be my position.

Other board discussion?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, for the department, I'll just revisit that, um, the questions I had before. When the test sets that you're doing, um, are you taking into consideration, like, the— in the bays, when the— how the fish are actually moving and slowing down, like Having, having seen the sonar from the, from the Kestrel and the— are you looking for a certain number of fish or the speed or if they're slowing down in a certain area that make you say, oh, now's the time for a test set in this area?

So through the chair, Mr. Wood, as far as where we line up test sets. We typically are out there in, on the Kestrel surveying the biomass of herring, seeing where the locations of the herring are congregating. We're also talking with commercial boats that are out there and what they're seeing. And once we've identified a biomass that we figured would constitute an orderly fishery, at that point we start looking to line up test sets to gauge the quality of the herring that would be taken in the fishery. And it's at that time, you know, we give permission to the test boats to make a set.

We have department staff on hand to sample those fish. And as soon as the department staff is able to get samples from those test sets, we request that the boat release the set. And, um, often that can be done very quickly. And, um, and, uh, and also I just want to say we, we maintain a log of those test sets, and we also put the test set information, how many test sets there were, um, and what the results of those test sets, as far as approximate how many tons were harvested and the resultant samples of rule quality in our daily announcements.

Thank you. How many typical test sets are done in a day, you know, when you're actively conducting them?

Madam Chair, it can be highly variable between the days and throughout the years. You know, if we look through over time of taking— when we've recorded test sets, I mean, there's variables between, you know, down to, you know, 5 test sets in a year, up to about, well, a little over 60 in a year. So again, that's, you know, generally like distributed over time and over area. If we look at the most recent year, I believe it was pointed out, In 2023, there was 53 test sets. In 2024, there was 14.

So it can be from maybe 1 to, you know, several. My question was related per day. So how many typically per day are you occurring— are occurring when you're actively testing? Um, the recent 10-year average is about 2. Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the description that Mr. Tienus provided of our— the test set program. Just a question to clarify the substitute language in RC-196. Is this log that's described here, is that related to test sets or commercial sets that are released? I think both, but yeah, yeah, because they're, you know, our practice is to document the test sets that, that we authorize.

But, you know, during the course of the fishery, there may be sets, commercial sets, not test sets, that are released because they set on fish that are not marketable. And we try to discourage releasing sets once they've started to pump on those fish. Ideally, if they're going to release a set, it would occur before they've started to pump. So I just, I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification on that. No, I appreciate that.

And I think that that's part of what the data that's missing, that was sort of being attempted to capture. Again, this proposal was a bit confused, but the original proposal, but it was presented in Committee of the Whole as a suite of options. And this particular piece of— or option, I should say— I thought was reasonable. Is that information publicly available?

Madam Chair, as Mr. Tinnis stated, in the advisory announcements that are issued almost daily during the fishery and the lead-up to the fishery, we do publish the test sets that occurred that day. You know, that, that might be something that we could include more formally in our annual management report. We, we don't necessarily know about every commercial set that's released. We see a lot of them, but we— there could be sets released that we are not aware of. So that would be something that, you know, we would have to try to, try to modify our operations to track better.

Which also brings up an interesting question in the commercial releases or tests or whatever you want to call them. How many of those are occurring on a typical day? Release sets in the commercial fishery? I don't know. Mr. Tinnis, do you have an estimate of that?

Um, Madam Chair, that's also dependent on what kind of quality of, of herring that are, that they're seen in the, in the, on a given day. Ideally, with our test sets we have leading up to commercial fishery, we eliminate that possibility. However, there, as we've heard, I mean, the herring do move around in the course of a day, and so you could have herring that we didn't make test sets on move into open commercial area. And so I would say there could be, you know, openings where there's zero sets released, and I'd say that's probably more the, the norm. Um, but I mean, certainly there's days, openings, that there's more test sets released, and we monitor that to the best of our ability.

And if we start seeing sets that are being released, we close down the fishery. Okay, thank you for that. Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Zarey. I understand the department's opposition in their comments on this, and the comments are pretty extensive as far as.

Explaining the background of this. I do recall during Committee of the Whole, concerned, you know, while it's periphery in the department's comments because they're talking about overall the overarching management, you know, the focus on the commercial harvest and the marketability. I think a collateral impact here would be the marketability and the marketing opportunities would be diminished as well. So for that reason also, I'll be opposed. Opposing this.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. There was one AEC and 100 public comments in favor of this, and there was one AEC and about 12 public comments opposed. Thank you. Mr. Swenson.

Other board comments? Mr. Carpenter. 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 may result in additional cost to the department to provide staff time in order to ensure complete logbook and status of all commercial sets is maintained. And 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. Director Peterson? Anything more than what you've already put on the record? Yes, there is more that I haven't put on the record.

This exact statute actually has been the subject of litigation based on unclear language that was adopted by the board decades ago that was then codified in a way that wasn't exactly what the board passed, creating an affirmative duty for the department to undertake, arguably undertake certain actions in their management of the fishery. We're not going to allow that to happen again at the Department of Law because we'd be in the position of codifying a regulation that we know there's no authority for and then turning around and defending that regulation. We can't do that. So if this were to pass, we would indicate in the regulatory language that though the board has no authority to do so, it would appreciate if the department did these things and make it explicit that there is no affirmative duty for the department to do it. And I'm not saying that to be difficult.

I'm saying that to avoid litigation. Understood, which is why I characterized it as a request. Sergeant Finches? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 181 as amended. Wood? No. Godfrey? No.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Ziray? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Carpenter? No. Svensson? No.

Motion fails. 3 In favor, 4 against. Madam Chair. Proposal number 182. Madam Chair, proposal 182, 5AAC 27 point new section.

Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, each season, G01A permit holders would have the option of fishing open pounds for spawning kelp in lieu of purse seines for sacro herring in the Sitka Sound herring fishery.

Permit holders may only fish one gear type each year, and participants in the spawn-on-kelp fishery would need to register with ADF&G prior to March 1st. This proposal, proposal was brought to the board in 1997, 2003, 2015, and 2022, and the main concerns discussed during those meetings were that the spawn-on-kelp fishery in Sitka Sound would compete with the same areas as this subsistence harvesters causing conflict with the user groups, and also how this would be implemented with CFEC. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. Under current regulations, if an SOK fishery were established in Sitka Sound, only permit holders of L21A permits would be able to participate. To establish a new Sitka Sound spawn and kelp pound fishery exclusive to G01A permit holders, CFEC must first exclude the waters of Sitka Sound to pound fishermen holding L21A permits.

Additionally, a kelp harvest management plan would need to be adopted for this fishery. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion?

Mr. Godfrey, then Mr. Swenson. I, you know, I had a conversation with the proposer. Obviously, he spoke during Committee of the Whole. I heard some concerns during Committee of the Whole. Along the lines of a new fishery, even just confined to a new gear type.

But in light of the fact that it's not bringing any new participants, it's— if anything, you know, I think it's, it's a pilot, would be a pilot program, would probably take some time to generate much momentum, not unlike the beach seining in Cook Inlet that was attempted. So you're talking about what we're discussing here is taking current permit holders and giving them another way to harvest, probably in a much more low-impact way at that. Most certainly more low-impact. And I'm all for experimental, out-of-the-box approaches like this. So I'm in support of this.

It may or may take off if it passes, but You know, it's as, as a kind of an exploratory kind of test gear operation. I think it's a, it's something I, you know, I always appreciate the ingenuity and out-of-the-box approaches, doing things differently than has always been done. And I don't see much in the way of any collateral, you know, downside here.

Mr. Swenson, I would attend to agree with Mr. Godfrey. I like the idea that the herring come in and lay their eggs and then they get to go back to the ocean and do their thing. And it doesn't— it's not killing the herring. And that's, to me, that's such— I think it's such a forage fish for all the other fish that I think we need to think about, you know, hard about saving these fish as much as we can.

Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, initially I was kind of thinking the way the last two board members, but after— but immediately after, you know, after hearing from a lot of people out in the audience and stuff, I changed my mind totally. And I just like to note there were no ACs and almost no public comments in favor of this, and there were 2 ACs and over, over 100 public comments in opposition to this.

And yeah, I'll be, I'll be a no vote on this one.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, for the department, when you do this open pounding and you get the, the kelp, is it, are the, is the kelp that's being used from seed or is it going out and harvesting the kelp to be used in a, in the pound? Through the chair, Mr. Wood. It's, it's natural occurring kelp, so it's, it's harvested. And using the other spawner kelp fishers example, there's areas we allow kelp harvest to take place.

It's where natural occurring kelp is already grown up and in, in stock. So it's not, it's not by seed. They're not growing their own kelp. It has to be harvested from another area. We have restrictions on that.

Obviously within the area there can't be We designate areas where there isn't any known spawn, natural herring spawn that's occurring. And if there is, then they can't harvest that kelp from that area. So how much kelp ends up being harvested in Sitka Sound in a, in a season? But both just without even this fishery.

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, there is subsistence harvest of raw kelp that does take place in Sitka Sound. I believe that was covered in the subsistence report as far as how much that is. I don't recall off the top of my head, but it's, I would say, in the thousands of pounds.

Director Weider, do you have anything to add to that? Or Ms. Still?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can tell you the— from based on permits. Just give me one second to, to find it for— because there is a permit for herring spawn on kelp in Sitka Sound, and it's averaged 2,970 pounds of roe on kelp by 55 permits over the last 20 years, I believe. Thank you. And follow-up, Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. So how many pounds would be required for, for a 60 by 40 pound And I just, as a guess, maybe, or Blades, like, I'm just wondering, is the natural harvest, is the kelp harvest gonna be significant to create 4 separate beds for.

For this proposal?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood, I, I don't know how many pounds of kelp that would entail. You know, typically if we look at the other spawn on kelp fisheries, we limit, we limit those fisheries by how many, how much kelp they can add into their, to their pounds by the fronds of kelp. So that's what the limitations are. So it just depends on how this management plan would be set up as far as allowances of how much kelp can be used within the open pounds.

Follow-up. Did the department ever consider like how much pounds of kelp would have to be harvested to be used for this? 'Cause it seems like if it's a significant amount of kelp, then that is potentially one of the larger impacts of this among some of the other things that kind of are around it. Mr. Meredith, do you—. Through the chair, in our staff comments, we do have some, some estimates for kelp, but the kelp for the fisheries harvested from Sea Otter Sound and District 3, there was 5 tons of kelp.

5 Tons of kelp was harvested and deployed in 1998 and 4.5 tons in 1999, and that was with, uh, in use in those, those two experimental pounds back in the late '90s, in, uh, 1980— 1998, 1999 seasons. That was for the pounds, for the, for the actual pairing pounds? Correct. That's what was used in, in those experimental pounds in Sitka Sound in the late '90s. Okay, so you're— so there's like harvested up to anywhere from 5 tons to 4.5 tons, but— and then the subsistence harvest you said was 2,975 pounds?

Uh, through the chair, that's correct. However, the subsistence harvest would include eggs on the kelp as well, so, um, all right. Yeah, I think I I wish we had another word for these containment areas other than pound. Yeah, it's getting very confused. Mr. Meredith, we could call them trawls.

Mr. Meredith, let's keep us on track here. Madam Chair, for the record, Beau Meredith, Ketchikan Area Management Biologist, Commercial Fisheries.

When we had a discussion with the proposer 3 years ago, it was a lot of kelp. Given the life history of Macrocystis and the means that they're harvesting this kelp, you know, they harvest at the surface. You whack off a chunk at the surface, that kelp survives and grows. And we did some experimental removal studies in the, in the '80s, late '80s, '90s in the Ketchikan area where we basically clear-cut a macro area and then did subsequent aerial surveys. And there was No noticeable difference after 6 months to a year in those macro beds.

Mr. Wood. So it sounds like it grows pretty fast, like a weed. But what if it was more, you know, if each permit holder had 4 of these down the road and then you had to, I mean, what is, is there any idea of how much exploitation of the kelp can be taken out of an area like Sitka Sound?

Not really, Mr. Wood. And like Mr. Tina said, there are closed areas for where, for where the currently the, the, the, the pound fishery can harvest kelp. And, you know, in the Craig area, in the Heidelberg area, and in the Sick area, you have designated closed areas to protect spawning areas. But as far as how much harvest can a macrocystis bed support? Given the harvest strategies and provisions, I would say it can support a lot.

Okay. Wow. One more question. Thank you. I'm done.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah.

It's quite obvious that the board has the ability to allocate. That's the only reason we're here, quite frankly. For the most part. And when I look at the history of this, you know, the allocation of Sitka Sound herring is specifically right now, there's one gear group that's authorized to harvest that at the department's discretion. And so in my opinion, even if the board were to say this is a great idea, I think that there's going to have to be some movement at CFEC to deal with giving a new gear group, which they may create or they may not create.

I have no idea. They're an independent part of state government. And I guess, I guess maybe it's a question to Mr. Peterson. Am I reading this right? And if I'm not, please correct me.

Through the chair, Member Carpenter, you are reading it right. And this actually came up at the board meeting the last time this proposal was up. I don't remember, several years ago, but I think some of you were on the board. And there'd been some confusion about what needed to happen. Effectively, if the board passes it and separately the CFEC takes action to create, to allow this change to the gear under the same permit, then there'd be a fishery.

If the board doesn't pass it, or if the CFEC doesn't make the change that they would have to go through their independent process and make or not make, then it wouldn't be a fishery. Clear enough. Mr. Wood. All right, could there be a commissioner's permit or something, just like the— remember Godfrey mentioned the beach sand thing? Is there anything that could be worked with that?

Mr. Powers. Thanks, Madam Chair. So under AS 16.05050, the commissioner does have authority to authorize experimental gear types, and that was the authority used to authorize the earlier experiments in this fishery. So, you know, we I'm not sure that there's a lot more to learn.

I think we, you know, that's the intent of these experimental permits is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new gear type. So it would probably work here. I mean, you would probably be able to harvest a viable marketable product. I mean, that's why you keep seeing this proposal.

So I'm not— while we do have the authority to issue a permit, I'm not sure if it would be in the best interest of the fishery or the state to do so at this time, given, you know, the intent of that authority to test a new gear type. We've already done that. Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I love this idea. I think it's a really good idea. My only heartburn comes with the use of this gear in subsistence areas. And I think there were some limitations, but it does allow for that. And I think for me, that's tilting me towards a no.

If this was just in a commercial gear area, I probably would have voted yes.

Reading it the way I'm reading it or understanding it how I'm understanding it, I can't stand behind it. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'll reference my subsistence review for this particular area and prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in approval of this proposal. Proposal not expect to result in any additional direct cost to the department?

And I'd call the question. I'll just put a couple thoughts on the record. So, I mean, CFEC can do this. We heard from CFEC during committee that they would appreciate clear direction from the board about whether or not the board wanted to create this fishery or not. We can do that.

It is, um, you know, the board is typically encouraged to look at the opportunities for creation of new fisheries. But this has got a convoluted history, in my opinion. And, you know, there has been in the past permitted roe-on kelp fisheries in this area. And it got to the point where my understanding is that the kelp beds were depleted or the kelp was depleted in that space. And so that was an issue.

My primary issue is that And we don't know how the markets would respond to this or how— what, if any, effect it would have on the Sacro, permanent Sacro fishermen. But my concern is that even maybe in its infancy, there would be definitely pound structures in the core subsistence areas. That's problematic for me in and of itself. There's already a lot of conflict in that space that the board has endured.

I'm not interested in creating more conflict. And if there was interest over time, there is a limited amount of space for these pounds, I think, would be successful.

I think we would just be setting up a situation where the conflicts would deepen and become even more divisive. And for that reason, I am not going to be supportive of this, although I appreciate the tenacity and the ingenuity of the proposer in trying to get this through.

This is probably not the place to do it. Any other board discussion? Mr. Wood and then Mr. Zirin, then I'm going to call a question. Okay. Yeah, I'll just— I think it comes back down to location, location, location.

And right now it's already a very congested location. I love the idea. I think it's probably visionary. But the time and place is really— I'm not sure it's suitable for it right now. I really applaud the way that this could be prosecuted.

But I just think in this area in particular, it gets really messy. So I'll be a no. Mr. Zarek. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to keep it short, I'm just going to say everything that Mr. Woods just said I agree with, and that's what I would have said.

Question's been called. Ian O. Director Peterson. No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers.

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

Sergeant Pences. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 182. Godfrey?

Yes. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

Zareh? No. Carpenter? No. Svensson?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? No. Uh, motion fails, 2 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair.

Okay, we're going to take a quick break so we could— some folks can check out of hotel rooms. So we'll come back on the record about 11 o'clock. Thank you.

Okay, welcome back. We're back on the record. The time is 11:07. We're going to resume deliberations of Group 6. We're at Proposal 183.

Proposal 183, please. Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Anthony Wallach. Proposal 183, 5AAC 27.185, Management Plan for Herring Spawn on Kelp in Pounds Fisheries in Sections 3B, 12A, 13C, and District 7. Madam Chair. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, L21A permit holders would be allowed to fish open pound gear in Sections 13A south of the latitude of Point Cackle and in Section 13B north of the latitude of Aspid Cape, except for Whale and Necker Bays. The presence of pound structures on the grounds could compete for the same area and shoreline as subsistence herring row-on-branch fishery, causing conflict among these users. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal.

The board adopts this proposal. The department is confident that the regulatory program can be adopted to adequately monitor and manage the fishery. Basic parameters that govern the existing spawn-on-kelp fisheries would also need to be determined. Due to the potential for conflict among user groups over harvesting areas, if the board chooses to adopt this proposal, it may wish to consider if reasonable opportunity is still provided for subsistence uses. Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion?

I am going to just say that this is— this is— I don't think particularly reasonable proposal and And I will not be supportive of it. And there was overwhelming opposition to this from members of the public. There was only a couple folks, one that wanted to amend and one that was in support. So I am— I will not be supportive of this proposal. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, for all the reasons the chair just mentioned, I'm not in support either. I'd also note that the Petersburg AC was opposed and so was in public comment from the Sika tribes opposed to this as well.

Now we had a discussion just a little bit ago about potential conflicts of pounds and subsistence areas, and this just is way worse. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I'd reference my subsistence review from prior proposals for this as well. Approval of this proposal not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery.

And approval of this proposal not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Eno, Director Payton. No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers. No, Madam Chair. Director Ueda. No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson.

No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Vincent. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 183.

Carlson-Vandork. No. Carpenter. No. Wood.

No. Godfrey. No. Svenson. No.

Chamberlain. No. Ziray. Nope. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 184.

For the record, Beau Meredith, Commercial Fisheries Area Management Biologist here in Ketchikan. Proposal 184, 5AAC 27.185, Management Plan for Herring Spawn on Kelp and Pound Fisheries in Section 3B, 12A, and 13C in District 7. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the board, proposal 184, 185, and 186 are very similar. And I'd like to just kind of briefly describe the slight differences and then reference past comments, if that's appropriate. Sure. These proposals, 184, 185, and 186, all seek to expand the open area in Section 3B for the Craig-Kwak spawn-on-kelp pound fishery. The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of the proposal, but generally supports providing opportunity to the commercial spawn-on-kelp fishery when the biomass allows, provided it does not inhibit the traditional subsistence roe-on-kelp harvest in the area.

Um, there are three separate proposals here. Um, Proposal 184 describes an extension to Port Mirabalas including Doyle Bay and expand from Point Amiguera to Point Providence. Proposal 185 has no description of the area to be expanded. It's a little unclear what the proposer's intent is other than to expand the area. And then Proposal 186 has a defined description of the proposed expanded area And it's shown along with Proposal 184 in Figure 184-1.

Proposal 186 is similar to Proposal 184, except that it excludes Doyle Bay, where there is a large aquatic farm site, while staying west of current closed waters around fish egg, which are in place to protect subsistence harvest around that island. Madam Chair, you— more discussion.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think we heard quite a bit of testimony on this. I believe it was the Craig AC and Kewaukee AC that were pretty opposed to this. You know, I mean, for those reasons alone, it takes place right in their right near those communities and without some public buy-in there, I'm not really willing to support it. I would go ahead and reference my subsistence review on this one as well from prior proposal.

Thanks. My Committee of the Whole notes noted that the Craig testimony was that it was, I think, directly in front of the community of Craig and there was a lot of traffic that would present a lot of conflicts. And so I think that the The area being requested is probably not the greatest, and I would have preferred to see it being a little bit more, I guess, a little bit smaller. Mr. Wood. Yeah, once again, I think these are great ideas and would really like to help make them happen, but just the proximity to other user groups already create kind of a crowded area, potentially user conflicts.

So with that, I— and the fact that ACs were opposing it, I'm— I as well will be in opposition. 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 direct 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. Weeda?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Sergeant? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 184. Zeray? Nope. Chamberlain?

No. Godfrey? No. Svensson? No.

Wood? No. Carlson-Vandork? No. Carpenter?

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 185. Proposal 185, 5AAC 27.185, Management Plan for Herring Spawn on Kelp and Pound Fisheries in Sections 3B, 12A, and 13C, District 7. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 185 based on its action taken on 184. Second and ask unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 185.

Proposal 186. Proposal 186, 5AAC 27.185, Management Plan for Herring Spawn on Kelp in Pound Fisheries in Sections 3B, 12A, and 13C in District 7. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on 186 based on its action on 184. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 187.

Proposal 188.

Sorry, sorry, Proposal 187, my mistake. Proposal 187, 5AAC 27.130, lawful gear for Southeastern Alaska area. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This would allow spawn-on-kelp permit holders to wrap an extra layer of no less than 7-inch webbing around their existing pound structure in an attempt to provide additional protection to the pound structure and the spawn-on-kelp product. The department is neutral on the gear modification proposal. Modifying the pound structure to better protect herring is unlikely to impact fishing efficiency or practices. However, it may reduce the need for fishermen to seine additional herring following predator-related losses. If the proposal is considered, clear, concise language is needed to eliminate any confusion on how the additional webbing is attached to the pound structure.

The need to eliminate the potential for web billowing around the structure, potentially creating a navigational hazard or impacting the ability for department staff and AWT to access the structure. And I would also welcome any comments AWT may wish to provide. Thank you. Sergeant? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sergeant Mark Finches for the record. I did reach out to NOAA this morning and they felt that they needed to be involved with this because of the.

Marine mammal deterrent and the potential entanglement issues that happen with that. They did, they did add on what they were telling me, that if a fisherman were having problems with marine mammals, they have a Protective Resources Division which helps fishermen, anybody with like nets in the water, deal with their issues. And they have worked with places like the Sarah Hatcheries in the past where there are nets in the water. So they would just want to add that there are other options right now. We're not opposed to the idea, but we just think that some more lines probably need to be— or some more things need to be addressed before the board passed that.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm not sure what this proposal is going to do. It looks like a, you know, a grizzly bear going through a screened-in porch. I, I'm I'm not sure it'll really solve the problem. So hard to say, hard to be really in support of it.

Yeah, I'm reluctant to support it too. I mean, aside from the issues brought up by Wildlife Choofers, but there's no description of what webbing means. I mean, unless the department has a definition for webbing, but this could be all kinds of things. Would it be monofilament? Is it like seine webbing?

Is it— what is this? And I don't, I don't know. Do you? Is there any indication that you have or any definition that the board should be aware of?

Yeah, Madam Chair, the only description here is no less than 7-inch webbing. Thank you, Mr. Wood. So you could use chain-link fence.

All right, Mr. Carpenter. 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 the additional additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. E&O.

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

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Fincese? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 187. Svenson? No. Wood?

Nope. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

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

No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. Proposal number 188. Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Anthony Wallach. Proposal 188, 5AAC 27.190, Herring Management Plan for Southeastern Alaska Area.

Madam Chair, do the second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, it is unclear how the proposed fishing day restrictions would be implemented to the herring fisheries in Southeast Alaska and would result in a reduction in fishing time for all herring fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Restricting commercial fishing periods to 8 hours per day would likely not significantly impact herring sac roe fisheries because most of these fishery openings currently are shorter than 8 hours in duration. However, for food bait spawn on kelp fisheries, this would represent a large departure from how those fisheries are currently managed.

An observer program for the commercial herring fisheries would not alter the current management of these fisheries, but it is also unclear how the proposed observer program would be staffed and implemented. If non-confidential harvest data of incidentally caught fish are available, the department would be able to publish these data in appropriate fishery updates. The department opposes the proposal time restrictions and observer requirement aspects of this proposal. Limiting fishing time to the extent proposed would limit the department's ability to manage the Sitka Sound sacro fishery to achieve spatial and temporal distribution dictated in regulation or achieve daily harvest targets and the GHL. This would also eliminate the potential for a successful winter food and bait fishery and spawn on kelp fishery in the Craig, Klawock area pound fishery.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, this proposal is all over the place. Obviously, the board is taking action today.

This, this really hamstrings the department's ability to execute the fishery in Sitka Sound and The other aspect of it is, you know, the impacts that it would have on other fisheries, food and bait, etc., etc. So for those reasons, I will be opposing.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Swenson. Yeah, thank you. You know, ultimately, I think that there's these proposals here before us are coming to the idea of being able to hear from different user groups on how the fishery is managed. And from what I have observed in Sitka in particular, it's really unique because the manager is interacting with the tribe. And I don't know how you can— well, there's ideas on how to make that official, but the access to the department is large and both online, in person.

And I think anything that we do potentially to get in the way of how the department manage is important. The department listens. That's what this whole board stuff is about. They present us with a lot of ideas that sometimes we don't fully comprehend mathematically. But we take their word for it.

I'm— I don't want to get in the way of them continuing to do the job that they're doing. And they still seem to be respectful and deferential potential towards the other user groups without prioritizing the user groups. So with that, I'll just listen to other members. Mr. Swenson. Well, I'd have to agree with Mr. Wood and Mr. Carpenter, and, and the, uh, the staff is— this is just a big, large encompassing thing, so I'm going to be against this.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, there were about 100— there were no ACs and about 100— no, excuse me. There were no ACs and about 100 public comments in favor. And there were 2 ACs and about 14 public comments opposed.

Thank you.

[Speaker] So I kind of tend to agree with Member Carpenter that this proposal seems to be kind of all over the place, to use his terminology, I think. The other thing is that this has the potential to cut out 75%, if not a little bit more, of the fishery time. I can't be supportive of that, certainly not at this time. The other aspect of this that was confusing to me was the reference to bycatch, and I don't quite know what the reference to bycatch means. Typically that means non-targeted species, but there was no explanation in the proposal as a justification.

So I won't be supportive of this either. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I'd reference my subsistence review from prior proposals for this. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate.

Approval of this proposal would result in additional cost for the department to develop and implement an observer program for herrings in Southeast Alaska. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Any no? Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Bowers?

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

Sergeant Finches. No, Madam Chair. Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 188. Chamberlain.

No. Carlson-Vandort. No. Zeray. No.

Svensson. No. Godfrey. No. Carpenter.

No. Wood. No. Motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair.

Proposal number 189. Madam Chair, Proposal 189, 5AAC 27.132, same specifications and operations for Southeastern Alaska area. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this would reduce the efficiency of the purse seine herring fisheries by an unknown amount. In doing so, it would likely— that this would increase the duration of the commercial fishing activity to harvest the guideline harvest level for each individual fishery. It is unlikely reducing the maximum length of a herring purse seine would lead to more precise fishing or reduction in the amount of release sets in a fishery. The department opposes this proposal. Reducing the length of herring pursanes would result in a decrease in efficiency, causing more sets to be made to harvest the same amount of herring.

Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think this proposal does the exact opposite of what was being asked for earlier, specifically in regards to test sets. If you You cut the length of that net in half, and the department, especially when they're doing tests for sets, you're going to try and put a 50-ton set in a 100-fathom net.

You're going to not only crowd those fish more, it's going to cause the exact problems that you were trying not to cause before. So simply for those reasons, I won't be supportive.

Yeah, I'm not supportive either. I mean, when that net goes around the fish, the whole point is to not crowd them and make them run, or, you know, deplete the oxygen in the net, keep them loose. And if all of a sudden you restrict that by half, You're making half as double the number of trips and potentially harming the fish even more, especially on the test sets. So I am not supportive. I'm not going to be supportive of this one either.

In the proposal, it says that too many hearings are being set on during a season and that the nets deployed are massive. We just took action at this board about a couple hours ago that set a more conservative GHL and quota process, and the science does not indicate, the numbers do not indicate that there, that too many herring necessarily are being set on during the season. I realize that's a subjective statement in response to a subjective position, but based on the information that I have before me, I agree with the previous speakers that I think that this is going to exacerbate a problem that we're trying to that the proposal is trying to address. Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain.

So I had to double-check the math on this one because it's been a long time since geometry. But yeah, by reducing the length of the seine by half, you're reducing the area fished by 75%. So I agree, and I think all of these things are going to lead to, you know, To an extent, we do want an efficient fishery as long as it can be maintained. And this just seems to put up an artificial hurdle to, to prosecuting this fishery without a biological basis to do so. So for that reason, I will be opposing.

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal may result in an additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery in order to modify purse seine nets to become compliant with the 100 fathom maximum length. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I call the question. Question's been called.

Ian, Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Mr. Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Dr. Weedo?

No, Madam Chair. Mr. Peterson? No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Vincent? No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 189. Carpenter? No. Zareh?

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

Wood? No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain?

No. That motion fails 0-7. Madam Chair, Proposal number 190. Madam Chair, for the record, Troy Tinas, Proposal 190, 5AC 27.190, Hearing Management Plan for South Eastern Alaska area. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would require the department to manage herring fisheries without specific regulatory direction. The department would continue to be the sole management entity, as Board of Fisheries did not have authority to give management authority to another entity or direct the department to co-manage a fishery. The department manages fisheries under regulations adopted by the board.

The department opposes this proposal because it removes the basic management plan for managing Southeast Alaska herring. Removing the management plan from regulation will result in the department managing fisheries without a plan that has gone through many years of public process. The department would prefer to manage fisheries under management plans that have been developed through public process that all entities, including tribal entities, can participate in. And I'll defer to the Department of Law for additional comment. Mr. Peterson.

Well, Madam Chair, I think that was accurately conveyed. The Board doesn't have authority to force the department to enter into a co-management agreement, and that would be— even if the department wanted to, that would be the subject of another legal issue. So thank you. Board discussion? Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just had some— a statement from Commissioner Vincent Lang that he asked me to read since he has to be away on other business, and Since we had— there was discussion in Committee of the Whole about the past memorandum of agreement that the state and the Sika Tribe had entered into. I just wanted to pass along Commissioner Vincent Lang's remarks on that matter. So bear with me. I'll be brief.

I'm sorry I cannot be with you today. I'm the current U.S. chair of the Pacific Salmon Commission. And I am on my way to Portland for a meeting. I appreciated the heartfelt testimony and discussions this past week regarding herring in and around Sitka Sound. I learned a lot and I understand the importance of herring culturally and as a food source.

I am willing to continue the current processes being used to communicate preseason and in-season, which appear to be working. Further, I am interested in these discussions where this could be improved. However, I'm not willing to agree to, to sign the proposed MOA with the Sitka Tribe at this time. I believe we can get to the same end by using other means that ensure all users understand management decisions and are equally engaged in research. Again, thank you for your heartfelt discussions.

I look forward to continuing them in the future. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. Mr. Chamberlain.

This one is hard for me because I understand the importance of co-management to certain groups across the state. And where they are coming from, I— the gravity of this request is not lost on me. But I also have to recognize what I'm here to do as a board member. This is more— I hate putting it so bluntly, but it's a political decision. And the board is not— should not be a political entity.

And our duty is to the resource.

And just the inner lawyer in me is just saying, you know, it's more prudent to stay within our roles. While I deeply, deeply understand and appreciate all of the testimony that came in, and I agree with a lot— with the vast majority of it.

That's not what the board does. That's what the commissioner does. And what the legislature does. So I prefer that we stay in our lanes on this one. And with the utmost respect to the tribes around here, I've learned an incredible amount.

I've worked a lot with the leadership in the past and have deep deep respect for them, but I don't think, you know, it's clear that this is not within our authority. So on that, on for that purpose alone, I will be voting no.

Mr. Godfrey. I would echo what Board Member Chamberlain said.

Our hands are tied, but [Speaker:CHIEF JOHNSON] I'd love to see us get to a place in the state where tribes were able to do that, where they have historical claim and utilization of the resources. At the end of the day, them and their ancestors were here before statehood, before Russian occupation, before anyone created arbitrary boundaries to call this a territory and then a state and put a flag in it. You know, I— that's the way— that's the way of the world, obviously. But I would love to see co-management of natural resources in conjunction with tribes and the state. Us get there in some capacity at some point in time.

I would have loved to have seen it happen a long time ago before my— before I was born.

Be that as it may, right now our hands are tied. So I appreciate the spirit of the proposal for sure, and hopefully we get there maybe through a different mechanism, if not through the board in the future.

Let me offer a couple thoughts. So I carefully read RC 174, which I think was intended to sort of address some of the issues that— in response to some of the department issues and some other issues, I expect. But that is not what we have before us at this time. I think we are being presented with this because there is a sentiment that not everybody has that access to the department or meaningful access to the department. And the management that other groups have perhaps or that they would like.

And I was, you know, I can be, I am not familiar, I haven't spent enough time down.

I don't care to know whether that is true or not. But what I did hear was some language that was surprising to me in the testimony in committee of the whole. I heard a testifier describe what was being requested as being saddled with help by outside user groups.

At best, I will— that is accidental, and at worst, that is deeply offensive.

And so I think that hearing that, I think sort of underscored to me where some of this might be coming from a little bit. I don't know if that's the case or not. Another testifier said they have enjoyed 35 years of access to the department. Well, that's great. But I do feel like maybe not everybody feels that way.

And I think that that's what the MOA is attempting to address, and I respect that. The board is, as you have heard, doesn't have the ability to compel the department to enter into these types of agreements or negotiations, but the board can discuss it. And I appreciate the words from Commissioner Lang, and I am hopeful that he and the department that he leads will hold true to that in looking for additional ways to collaborate with the indigenous users particularly that are requesting this in this area.

At the end of the day, it's going to benefit the resource in my opinion. So having access, equal access of all user groups to the managers and to the management of the resources, a large part of what this process is about, but it is, it's clearly important And I won't be the arbiter of whether or not that has occurred or not, but I think it's worth noting because it's reflective of the things that I heard at this meeting. So I've got the language in one night and proposal number 190 before me. As written, I cannot support it, but I just wanted to acknowledge all the things that I heard at this meeting. And I'm hopeful that there are opportunities for collaboration, for improved communication, And at the end of the day, I think that if we are successful in that endeavor, we will have a more sustainable use of this resource, the herring resource, and just a better process in general.

And those are my comments. Any additional board discussion? Mr. Zirais. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, in the AYK area, on the Kuskokwim River, they do have a level of co-management that seems to be working very well. And, you know, I do support that type of thing because there are a lot of, you know, sometimes, you know, like, there's probably a lot of people that couldn't be here that are very tied towards using the fish, and they can't be here because they don't have the money, they don't have the means, and co-management does more— a co-management approach can, if done correctly, provide more of that for them. And so I'd like to— yeah, I like the idea of this very much, but as we've heard, we have this proposal before us to repeal the basic management plan for managing commercial herring fisheries in Southeast Alaska, and I as a board member cannot vote for that. But that said, I agree with what's being said up here by other board members, and I support co-management. Thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd just like to say that about how the Sika Tribe, the Herring Protectors, how they've worked with They've created, they have their science and they've integrated that Western science into their knowledge.

And taking your time to come here and talk to us and tell us these things and teach us these things, I can't thank you enough for that. It may seem sometimes like you're not being heard, but it's impossible to not hear you. And I mean, without a doubt, you are a force.

And without that persistence, without that cooperation to continue to work with the department like you do in SICA and blend that unity, you are being heard. I'm sorry it's not in a formal sense. And it appears that that's one of the hurdles we have right here is this formal sense. But it's not falling on deaf ears. And as time moves forward, I think clearly your voices are being heard because what you're saying is incrementally what's happening.

We're trying to get more conservative, well, it appears more conservative with how we're running these fisheries as they get. Anyhow, I don't support 190 as it is. And I won't vote for it, but it's— I just wanted you to know that I hear you.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Do you know, Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

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

No, Madam Chair. Sergeant Finces. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll. Final action on Proposal 190.

Svenson. No. Wood. No. Chamberlain.

No. Carpenter. No. Carlson-Vandorp. No.

Ziray. No. Godfrey. No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

That concludes deliberations on Group 6, and, um, we're going to take a short break.

Okay.

Okay, we're back on the record. The time is 11:54. We've come to the miscellaneous business portion of our agenda for this meeting today, and there are 4 items on the miscellaneous business agenda. That is RC 193, The first of which is an ADF&G proposed regulations regarding shellfish hatcheries. I requested this agenda item be placed.

I just wanted to get a little bit of explanation from the department about the genesis of the reg package, what the process is and what it does, and just kind of have that discussion. Mr. Bowers. Sure. Thanks, Madam Chair. So HB 41 was adopted by the legislature and became law in October of 2022.

Um, there were various versions of this bill in the legislature as far back as 2016, but, uh, the ultimately HB 42 was, was the law that, um, was passed. And so that set of statutes, um, sets up a process for permitting shellfish fishery enhancement projects that could include hatcheries, could be other types of projects that would enhance shellfish fisheries, rehabilitate shellfish fisheries. So pursuant to the adoption of that law, the department has promulgated draft regulations to implement that bill. And those draft regulations are currently out for public comment. The public.

Comment period was extended. It's a lengthy set of regulations, so the, the comment period, at the request of members of the public, was extended. And I believe it's probably got 45, 40 days left on the public comment period, somewhere along there. Miss Hutter probably knows for sure, but yeah, it's still out for public comment. So that, that's the basic rundown of what the draft regulations do.

They, they establish a permitting process for shellfish fishery enhancement projects.

And I haven't looked at the reg package closely. And shellfish, all shellfish, or specific to a particular type of shellfish? Madam Chair, yeah, it's all shellfish. So there have been some Ongoing research initiatives focused on king crab. I think, you know, that those projects are probably the most likely candidates for potential permitting.

You know, there's been research done in the Kodiak area, in Bristol Bay. There's been a little bit done in Southeast related to enhancing king crab fisheries. There's also some interest in abalone, sea cucumbers. But yeah, it would—. It would—.

Clams. There's, there's quite a bit of interest in clams as well. So it would cover all shellfish. And under the proposed regs, would it be setting up a similar type of structure as we currently have for enhancement projects or hatchery projects, I should say, related to salmon? Madam Chair, the regulations and the bill itself were largely structured around the existing Salmon Fishery Enhancement Program.

You know, given the inherent differences in the biology of these species, there are some changes that were required there. And some, some changes based on our experience with the, with the salmon program. Thank you. Any other board questions?

OK, moving on to agenda item number 2, draft delegation of authority. This is from Commissioner Vincent Lang. Do you want to speak to it briefly? Yes, Madam Chair. So you have before you RC-191, which is a Draft delegation of authority.

This is a formal request to the board to delegate authority to the commissioner to allow import of out-of-state salmonids into the state for the purpose of stocking lakes. With the legislature passing HB 295, there is a demand from the public to stock lakes without— that do not have public access, which before this legislation was not legal. With the passage of HB 295, the only in-state providers that can sell salmonids to the public are the private nonprofit hatcheries where current production of Chinook and Coho salmon is fully allocated. There are out-of-state providers who are willing to sell fish for the purposes of stocking lakes. So these are lakes that don't have public access, so they wouldn't be eligible for the state's stocking.

Program that we currently have. Thanks. Any board questions? I could just tell you that it's my intent not to take action on this at this time, but probably in March. I think it would be good to have a little bit more robust discussion about precisely what that means and be good to have the commissioner present to do that.

Mr. Wood, this is about— I'll read this more closely, but salmon, it's coming from out of state, so they've gone through already a hatchery program to make sure they don't have disease and stuff. Is that correct? Through the chair, Mr. Wood. Yes. So, so we would— there would be a permitting process to allow this.

And so through the permitting process, there's a pathology review, genetics review. There could be stipulations placed on the species. You know, we could require that they are triploid fish that can't reproduce. Yeah, so it's through our fish transport permit process that we would use to authorize this. And there are species of salmonids that are prohibited for import into Alaska.

So it would only be— such as brown trout and brook trout. So it would only be species that, that could be brought in. That aren't on the banned list, so to speak. Follow up. Okay.

So and this would be coming into isolated lakes where they can't get into a river system. Category 1. Yeah. Category 1 lakes. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Any other board questions or discussion with respect to agenda item number 2? We'll see it again in March. Oh, Kurt.

I'm just looking at the language on fish transport permits. Can you define the scope of what the board is delegating as far as this goes? Just to— so I make sure— just to make sure we know exactly what we're giving the commissioner permission on.

Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. So there are a number of regulations that the department would amend if this delegation were granted. So in Chapter 41, regulations related to collection, transportation, possession, propagation, or release of aquatic organisms and aquatic farming would be amended.

5 AAC 41020, inspection for disease of broodstock, would be amended. 5 AAC 41070, prohibitions on importation and release of live fish. 5 WAC 41075, classification of banned invasive species. 5 WAC 41080, reporting and control of fish diseases at egg take sites, hatcheries, and rearing facilities. Those are the specific regulations that would be amended.

So when this is brought up in March, can you bring a lot of Tums? Because there's, there's a lot to digest here. Thank you. Okay. Hearing no additional discussion, that brings us to agenda item number 3, a draft letter to the Alaska Legislature regarding observer authority and funding.

Mr. Ziray, would you like to speak to your letter? Thank you, Madam Chair. Initially, this was brought up on— in RC 102 and And I worked on it with the people from Salmon State, Loretta Brown and Ryan Astolas, on a formal letter. And the formal letter which we worked out and worked with— so that's RC78.

And I have that letter in front of me and the board's— I guess everybody remembers this or I could go through the little details of what it was about. Yeah, I think you could summarize it, but my intent is to, you know, we've got the letter now, you know, the chair will review it and if there's any edits or questions, then I'll have that conversation. With you and get a formalized— if something with my review prepared for March, if that's acceptable to you. [Speaker:DR. ROBERT NELSON] That is perfectly acceptable, and the letter has been— you know, I have had Art look at this letter, and so— And it's— and the proposers from Sammon State also looked at the letter. So I think we're all set there.

But yeah, go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for that, members. Ray, yeah, I'd like to take some time to, to take a look at it if it is something to be presented to the full board for consideration, vote, and whether or not they want to advance it to the legislature formally.

Thank you. Fine, great, very good. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, um, that brings us to item number 4, draft policy on remote participation by members at board meetings.

Mr. Godfrey? Yeah, I had mentioned this in Cordova, and, uh, the acting chair had asked me if I'd be willing to draft up something. I think in my preamble I essentially explained it, but I'll just elaborate a little bit. On that. I'll give an example.

A few years ago in Kodiak, there was 3 board members, myself being one of them, who had conflicts on a proposal or a suite of proposals. And there was no, there was no clear delineation on what is expected of a board member when, when deliberation, or in particular our committee of the whole, on that, on those proposals that they have a conflict on what that person was to do. One of us left the table and went to the other side of the line on what he.

Conflict on. Another sat at the table but didn't say anything during the discussion, and another sat at the table and spoke. And so it's like, well, what is our clear policy here? And I had that in mind when I thought about the fact that since COVID we realized, hey, we have the technology and the ability to participate remotely, although it's certainly less than ideal. And I think the board needs to adopt a policy that you can or you cannot participate remotely so it's not done on an ad hoc basis, that we're consistent and we all know the expectations.

You know, if we are ill but capable of looking at a computer but not being there or have a schedule conflict. So with that in mind, I put a policy down that would mitigate the abuse of that and limit someone, you know, to doing that once in a cycle versus saying, yeah, you can participate remotely because it is less than ideal for reasons I laid out, that being access, being accessible to the stakeholders. Really difficult to do if you're remote. So I would like the board to adopt a policy, and whatever it is, I honestly, I don't care that much. I just want us to be consistent across the board in the event— because we've already done it.

We've, we've already had instances where a couple board members in the last year participated remotely, and an instance where a board member— that was me— was told I couldn't participate remotely. So that this, this kind of willy-nilly scattershot approach makes no sense. I don't think it's good for the confidence of the general public or board members not knowing what's the criteria for participating remotely or not. Okay, thank you. Well, I think that, uh, that makes sense.

And to that aspect, it is my intent to solicit public comment on the proposed policy, and we will take it up in March, and we will see if the public has any thoughts that they would like to share or guidance with the board on how we take that up in the future. Any other board discussion? Mr. Swenson. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Well, I don't know what you could do to a board member that said, hey, I'm not going to be there, I'll do it this way or that way because we are voluntary, but I would think that From my perspective, I'd have to be on my deathbed to not get to a meeting if I was ill, and I'd have to have one heck of a, you know, excuse for something else like a death or whatever it is. So that's kind of my perspective of it.

Okay. Well, appreciate that, and we'll have a full discussion about it in March. On the— you'll see it again under the March miscellaneous business agenda. Mr. Nelson. Madam Chair, I'll go ahead and put on our— on the meeting page for all of our meetings, we usually have a miscellaneous section on there.

So I'll put— I can put those 3 items on there for this upcoming March meeting.

The draft delegation that is RC191 here. The draft policy on remote participation, 182, and then I guess if we have a redraft of the letter to the legislature regarding observer coverage and funding, then that can go there once that's prepared as well. So just so the public's aware, the documents will be there and you're welcome to comment on that meeting on those subjects. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Any questions?

Any other questions? All right, brings us to board comments portion of the agenda. Maybe I'll just go down the— go down the table and offer the time. Mr. Godfrey.

As usual, I'd like to thank staff. They did a stellar job making this, from my perspective, seem almost seamless. I am always impressed with how prompt and capable they are with getting information to us and pivoting as they need to throughout these meetings. I will say a 13-day meeting on the road was an absolute grind. I do not think I participated in a meeting that was as much of a grind as this one was, especially covering all the material we did and all the different stakeholders that were here.

But I would also like to thank the Chair because I think, quite frankly, it takes a unique personality and skill set to manage manage what you did for this many days as well as you did. And I don't envy you, but I think you do a pretty good job of keeping us on track. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Godfrey. Appreciate that.

Mr. Swenson, I'm up.

No, that's all right. I have some of the same feeling Mr. Godfrey had. You know, I think the staff is— I mean, I rely on the AFNG staff to look at a lot of some of these things, 'cause I don't, you know, we don't all have, you know, it's like coming down here and getting into the gooey ducts and all the bottom-feeding crawly things and all the things we have to learn about. And I'm really helped by the staff, and I'm also very impressed with all the all the gals over there to get everything here and up. And I look at all this stuff and wonder, wow, that's quite an accomplishment.

And I'm also— the board, I think, has been great. The chair, Madam Chair, it's a tough meeting. And I wouldn't want to sit through another 13 or 14-day meeting if it if it could be helped. It would certainly be nicer to have it split into two meetings. And I want to also— I really appreciate Mr. Carpenter and his eloquent wordiness.

And it helps also, because you guys are the most two experienced on the board, and it helps me sometimes in some of these decisions where I'm going, I don't know much about this or that, and it helps when you you guys put your two cents in. And finally, I don't want to drag this out, but finally, I've learned a lot down here in Southeast Alaska. The people are great, you know, all of them. Some of them don't like what you— with your decisions, but that's okay too. I got along with pretty much everybody, and I appreciated all the information that I learned also.

So thank you. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The logistics associated with a meeting like this, I can't even fathom. I've done some massive trials with a lot— with, you know, 20,000 pages of exhibits, but none of them required this level of organization from so many departments and so many moving parts that This is— this was an amazing experience for me. I want to thank the city of Ketchikan, all the people from Southeast, the Tlingit and Haida, and all the user groups, the aquaculture associations. We got to tour a hatchery beforehand, and that was a wonderful experience. And although we didn't see eye to eye, the aquaculture associations have been a delight to work with.

As in the board members, my fellow board members have all been professional throughout. There's been genuine discussion and everyone cares deeply for this resource.

I, on my personal experience, I leave somewhat frustrated. I walked in and I saw a fishery that's having trouble, but it's on me to find a way to do better and to, to try to, to work with that. And so I look forward to gaining more experience, learning from the other members on this board and becoming a more effective board member. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain.

Mr. Ziray, any comments? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd just like to say The staff is impressive. They're asked a question and how they can come up in the speed that they do with some really good science is pretty impressive.

The members of the public likewise, some of the science that I heard from members of the public and the The things that they put together for us was likewise very, pretty incredible. Members of the board, without some of them, well, all the members of the board are smarter than me. That's all I can say. But they, it's, I really like to thank them for helping me understand a lot of the fisheries and stuff like that. Much like a lot of members of the public helping me understand the fisheries so I could make the best vote that I could.

And board support, so helpful and with any little things I needed and stuff like that. And yeah, just like to thank everybody. Quite an experience.

Mr. Wood. All right, I, um, I just want to thank this— the public and the staff that spent weeks ahead of time talking to me about all these different things and setting me straight. And then I'm always blown away at how the endurance of the staff here at these meetings, um, at all levels within the department and staff, it's, it's incredible. All the running around that happens.

But without the public, this wouldn't be the same process. So to them especially, I extend a huge thank you. If it weren't for our chair and vice chair, we'd be rudderless and without a keel. So I really appreciate how these two, Tom and Marit, have kept things in line. And lastly, I'd say I just feel like coming from a different part of this state and having the opportunity to learn about another whole third of this state state has been incredible, and especially a fishery like the troll fishery.

And, um, that was a major education for me. I really hope that, uh, that with the department's ability to manage in season, that this 3% that was allocated will end up in the hands of the residents and keep the troll fleet from being shut down and still give the opportunity to the non-residents to to catch some fish throughout the season within limits. So anyhow, I hope that that's the way it was intended and is prosecuted. And I really thank you for being here today and for dealing with us.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'll just echo a lot of what the rest of the board has said. I think we don't come down to Southeast very often. It was great to meet a lot of the staff down here. You guys have an amazing amount of opportunity.

More fisheries take place down here than anywhere else I've been in the state. So to the staff over here, you know, your speed at which you do things is awesome and you keep things on track. So glad to have been here. Really don't like 14-day meetings, though. Sorry.

Director Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I really want to thank my staff, Annie, Savannah, and Sam here for helping things go so smoothly with testimony signups and nearly 200 RCs during the meeting. Also want to thank Layla, who's not here, but she, of course, helped put a lot of these binders and stuff together before we came to the meeting. I really want to thank Alice Nelson and the other staff with the Ted Ferri Center here.

They have been fantastic to work with. This is a great venue for meetings, and it was seamless and without a hitch thanks to their help as well. I want to thank Kathleen Light with the Ketchikan Arts Council. We, we really had some, some concerns about getting this meeting scheduled, and They were very helpful and they relocated— moved one of their long-running events that was scheduled to be held here during this meeting, and they moved that out of their normal time in order to let us come to Ketchikan with this whole traveling road show that we do. And so thank you for that.

Really want to thank the local Fish and Game staff. They were a big help. Leading up to the meeting and, and then during the meeting. I really especially want to thank Beau, Meredith, and Kim Vichy. Kim's been a huge help with getting a vehicle and some of the logistics of getting things sent here ahead of time.

So a huge thanks to them.

And of course, thanks to the community of Ketchikan. It's been— I look forward to getting back here in the future. One last little thing for anyone who's on the 5 20 flight northbound. I think that's Flight 67. The front desk advised me to tell everyone to be in the hotel lobby ready to go no later than 2:45 if you want to get the hotel shuttle van over to the airport ferry.

Madam Chair, thanks. Thank you, Director Nelson. Y'all stole most of my thunder, but I will say that there's so much that goes into— so much precision and so much work that goes into successfully carrying off a meeting of this magnitude, this length on the road. And I am just ever grateful to department staff for your professionalism, for your patience with the board, and especially to board support staff for making, making this all happen and keeping us focused and, and organized. So appreciative.

I want to extend a thank you to the public for showing up, for participating, for educating us. And for your patience with this process as well. I'm always looking for ways to make it better and, and welcome any suggestions in that space. Thank you to my fellow board members. Extra special thank you to Director Nelson, of course, for keeping me on track here and on the rails.

And I also wanted to just say to the community of Ketchikan, what a wonderful facility. In terms of the various meetings that I've had throughout the state, this, this particular space has been one of the most comfortable, the most conducive to carrying off a large, successful Board of Fisheries meeting. So I just wanted to extend my sincere gratitude for the warm welcome that we've received in the community, to the staff at the hotel who's been wonderful, you know, from the from the restaurants to the hotel staff to the hospitality staff there has just been just really great to work with, and I'm very grateful. And I think with that, I will close it out. And also want to acknowledge the work of the other agencies that come and sit through and guide us in this endeavor as well.

Department of Law, Department of Public Safety, and Mr. Pappas is gone. But just want to say thank you for being here and thank you for helping educate us as well about the work that you do and keep us from getting into too much trouble. All right. Gunashish hawa. And we are adjourned.

Time is 12:23.