Alaska Board of Fisheries: 2026 Board of Fisheries Work Session (10/29/2026)

All right, good morning, everybody. The time is 8:56. The day is October 29th. I think it's a Thursday. And we'll go ahead and resume our agenda.

Moving through it, I believe we are at agenda item number 8, which is to review the memo for non-responsive proposals from the '27— or I'm sorry, the '26-'27 call for proposals. Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The items, the next 4 items we're going to talk about all should be in, behind the miscellaneous tab in your RC1 meeting binder. The first item is the thickest of the stapled bundles that are in there, and it's the non-responsive proposals from our 26-27 call for proposals. Every year when, when we issue our call for proposals, we do receive some proposal submissions that don't meet the call for proposals, and, and so we deem those non-responsive because they didn't fit the call.

This is also something that we go through tracking by log number submissions. Every, every submission that comes through our submission portal gets assigned a log number, and this also helps us track to make sure proposals don't fall through the cracks in the whole process of putting the proposal book together. So you'll see the page following the COVID page is a table of the non-responsive proposals. On the left are their log numbers. There's a short, a short description of why it was deemed non-responsive.

And you'll see most of those this cycle were a good chunk of them were that it was the wrong cycle. That's one of the most common reasons that proposals are deemed non-responsive. There are some that were the board doesn't have the authority that the proposal is asking them to do. There's a few in here that are duplicates. And when we receive a duplicate from the same individual or organization, we always keep the most recent one that we received, and we remove the one that was their earlier submission.

And so that's just a rundown of this. You know, this is included just for the sake of the record. All of the people who submitted these proposals on the list have received this, and I know I've talked to a few of them since then just to kind of explain to them a little bit more. But this is here for the record. And, uh, you know, if, if there was anything that the board felt, um, should be considered, you know, this is— I guess this is an opportunity for the board to kind of pluck something out of the fire and turn it back into a proposal.

So that's all I have on that item, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. I'll just add, in terms of sort of the process, review process for this, the department collates these, does an initial sort of determination for responsiveness, it then goes to law for legal review. If there's any issues, outside board authorities, things like that, um, that analysis then goes to the chair, um, who typically will meet with, um, support staff and law to kind of review. Um, sometimes there are things that are kind of on the edge that, um, generally I choose to include rather than exclude.

So So that's, that's kind of the process that this list goes through before it reaches this point for board review. Are there any questions or items to discuss from the non-responsive list?

Okay, thank you, Director Nelson. Let's move on to the 27-28 call for proposals. Proposals. Madam Chair, move the board adopt— approve the draft 2027-2028 call for proposals.

Mr. Nelson, will you kind of walk us through it, please? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do you want to get a second and we'll discuss it in the context of—. Yeah, we'll take. A second. Second. Thank you.

I better note that then.

One second.

Uh, this is again another one of the items in, uh, behind your miscellaneous tab. This is the call for proposals for next year's meetings, the '27-'28 meeting cycle. Uh, uh, for Southeast, uh, finfish, shellfish, Prince William Sound finfish, shellfish, and then all other shellfish statewide. Um, the draft is in there. You'll see on page 2, I did add some of the language that we talked about in the process committee meeting regarding, uh, page limits and, uh, a requirement to use the, uh, proposal form that board support provides.

We had some really problematic proposals this year, um, that were very long, and, uh, I really struggled to try to do some editing, uh, but keep the intent of their proposal there, but to try to bring them down to a reasonable page number. And that, that was the rationale for me suggesting a future page limit. I believe I have 3 pages in this one. I know we had some discussions in the process committee about about, you know, if they're including regulatory language for some of the larger management plans, that that could be problematic. And I'd be fine making the page limit excluding regulatory language from a 3-page limit, just not counting that towards that page limit if they have lengthy regulations they're including in it.

I also included some language that's been our past practice to not publish photos or tables or graphs in proposals. We did have some this year in a number of proposals, and it was just— I let those go through just because it would have taken much longer to get the proposals out for the public by going through the process to edit those. But I wanted to make that clear for future call for proposals that it's— this is what we're going to accept and this is what we're going to remove from proposals. Madam Chair.

Thanks, Art. Would it make— I mean, in the Process Committee, we discussed 5 pages. I think that would include most regulatory management plans. I think that's kind of what I heard.

I don't know, 3 to 5 pages. You know, I think that if somebody had an exceptionally long proposal that had a ton of regulatory language in there, I think a simple phone call just to clarify would, or allow them to submit the rest of the language would suffice. I don't know what your thoughts are on that, or Board Support's thoughts are. Yeah, I mean, as the proposals are coming in, you know, I'm trying to review these as they come in, but I think, as I've mentioned, the vast— you know, we open the call for proposals for, you know, usually a period of 4 or more months. And 90 to 95% of them come through in just the last day or two of the call for proposals.

And so I don't get to check them all at the end. And, and I don't let people edit their— edit or resubmit their proposals after the proposal deadline. If someone, you know, if I see something and we've still got time before the April 10 deadline, no problem. I'll work with them and stuff like that. But there are some that are going to come through at the end that I just won't probably have a chance to look at before that deadline passes.

Okay, so I mean, I guess the other stopgap is the non-responsive review process. If for some reason it was cut off and deemed non-responsive for whatever reason, that would be sort of a safety net, if you will, perhaps. I'm fine with leaving it at 3. Like I say, if the board wants to exclude regulatory language from that, I'm fine with that. I can add that before the call goes out.

If the board wants to go with 5 pages, I'm fine with that as well. There's one other thing I wanted to point out in here because it's a little different than past practice is the deadline. I've got Monday, April 12th on here because April 10th, our traditional day, falls on a Saturday. And I know there's a previous board finding that says when it falls on a weekend, it should roll to the next closest— no, the older finding says it should roll to the next closest day. And I, I think that would be a mistake to make it April 9th because that could potentially catch a lot of people off guard.

So I, I've got in here rolling it to the following Monday on the 12th. So I'm fine with that. I think that's appropriate, um, and if, if it makes it easier to exclude regulatory language, whatever is easiest for board support to parse is what I would prefer, I guess. Um, other discussion? Miss Irwin?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to the page limit, I think there was an interesting discussion at the process committee differentiating between, um, you know, really needing to build your case and the merits of a proposal versus submitting a proposal with identifying the need and the change you want to see, because as long as it meets the call for proposals deadline and the page limit and it's, you know, in cycle, you're gonna— it's gonna be taken up by the board. So you don't— it's not like an ACR process where you're trying to build this case to— as much as we're just trying to get it onto the board's table so that they can discuss it. So I don't see it really limiting too much, especially when we've got other avenues like RCs and testimonies and written oral comment to— for authors to comment on.

Any other discussion?

All right. So I guess the only change then would be to sort of just add that regular, you know, to exclude regulatory language.

To the call. And with that, we've got a motion, we've got a second. Are there any objections to the motion?

Hearing none, so moved. Okay, moving on to tentative meeting dates, locations for the 2028-2029 cycle. Let's go ahead and let Mr. Nelson walk us through the memo, please.

Madam Chair, uh, this one is also behind your miscellaneous tab. This has got a multicolor graph on the front page. Um, uh, as, as you all know, we set our meeting dates and locations 2 years ahead of time. That gives us plenty of opportunity to make sure we can secure the venues, um, secure, uh, room blocks. And avoid conflicts with other fishery-related meetings.

Most other regulatory bodies that deal with fisheries haven't set their meeting schedule at that point, so that— kind of like it, it makes them work around our schedule instead of us trying to work around their schedule. So this should work pretty well. You'll see on page 2 of it, I've got a, a table in there that's got proposed dates.

That should be— I apologize, at the header, that should be the 28, 29 dates. Um, you'll see I've got work session scheduled early October, uh, followed by the Peacod meeting. AYK is there in the middle of November. Bristol Bay, early December. The Alaska Peninsula, Chignik, early January, early to mid-January.

And then statewide finfish there in late February. So that's a total of 26 meeting days. You'll see I've got proposed days and backup dates in case we're not able to secure venues or anything for the proposed dates. Um, I do not recommend locations to you guys. That's your purview to decide.

But I do put the dates together and try my best to make sure those avoid conflicts. So, um, we even checked, and I think this will also avoid having a meeting during the Super Bowl.

Thank you. Appreciate that forethought, um, for future boards and future—. A little bit more information in here following, you know, I've got a bunch of meeting metrics from prior meeting cycles for each of these meetings that we're considering. That has the number of days, the number of proposals. And so you can kind of look at trends over, trends in the past of how long these meetings have lasted and what's the proposal volume been, just, just for more information for you.

Um, I've also got some long-term information on the dates that these meetings have had, plus a— there's some holidays listed at the back. And then the very last item on here is a board finding from 1991 that's got a lot of good information for the board to consider for scheduling meetings and, and where to go. So, Madam Chair,. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Any questions, at least, um, on the date scheduling portion of the memorandum?

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Um, So I was looking at the Bristol Bay finfish dates. I don't have a problem with the dates, but, you know, and maybe it won't happen, but I mean, we're scheduling basically 2 less days for Bristol Bay than we did this last cycle. And I'm just curious why you think that— why those are the appropriate amount of days.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Through the chair, uh, if you look on the green tables a little later in the package on page 4 of 8 of those, you can look at the previous trends for Bristol Bay. Um, and, uh, yeah, you'll see that for 2018 and 2022, those were 5 data meetings.

Um, we— I know we added more days to this most recent cycle, and I believe part of the board's rationale in that was because we knew we had some significant items coming at you, particularly the, the vessel length issue that Public Safety had brought forward, as well as the development of the Nushagak Chinook Action Plan. So I'm totally fine if the board feels that that should be perhaps a 6-day meeting. That should not be a problem. That's, that was just my recommendation coming forward. Okay.

All right, Miss, Miss Irwin. Madam Chair, I move the board approve the tentative meeting dates for the 2028-2029 cycle.

Second and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, so moved. Let's go ahead and consider the locations for each of these meetings, uh, one at a time, please. And so we'll begin with the location for the work session, tentatively proposed for October 3rd through 4th, 2028. Madam Chair, I move the board host the work session for 2028 in Anchorage. I second and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, so moved. The Western Region PCOD meeting, I think, would be— that's right on the, the end of, of the work session, so I would assume that those two would both take place in Anchorage. Um, is that the intent of the motion? Yes, Madam Chair, that's the intent of the motion. Okay, moving on to the AYK Finfish meeting, tentatively proposed November 14th through 18th, 5-day meeting.

Mr. Chamberlain.

Madam Chair, I move that the Board of Fish hold the AYK Finfish meeting in Bethel. Second, and ask for unanimous consent. Objection. There's been an objection. Would you like to speak to your objection, Mr. Carpenter?

Um, I guess I just would like to hear from Mr. Chamberlain about, you know, his reasons that that's obviously traditionally not been a place. We've either had it in Anchorage or Fairbanks. I don't know logistically if it's— I just, I guess I just want to hear from him a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I, I fully appreciate your, uh, your, your wanting clarification on this.

I'll speak to the lower Kuskokwim and the lower Yukon are home to 56 communities roughly and about 30,000 people in Alaska. They're in the— and just about everyone in that region depends on subsistence heavily. I've seen the benefit of going out to regions, going out to Cordova. Going out and looking at the Eyak River, locals brought me out to the Eyak River. When I went out to the Ketchikan, Sarah brought me to the hatchery.

And that was, I mean, there was so much to learn on that. And going out into those regions are very important for us as board members. I've always said, you know, in my time on the board, I want to meet the people where they are. And there is a large subset of Alaskans that are, you know, are facing an existential crisis when it comes to salmon. And I think it's important that we as a board go there.

When my fishery shut down in the '90s, it was those, you know, a lot of those decisions, management decisions were made 400 miles away, and I'd never seen one of them. Apparently one of them was my dentist, but I didn't know that.

So, and Bethel has made massive infrastructure improvements. There was a large-scale fiber optic internet line that went up and brought internet speeds equivalent to those here in Anchorage out to Bethel. There are a lot of, you know, there are a lot of hotels, there are a lot of Airbnbs everywhere there. Sorry, I've been out there about 4 times this year. And there, and, uh, you know, food options everywhere.

Uh, they've held congressional, uh, subcommittee meetings. Uh, when you look at the Chamai Festival, that brings in thousands of people and they host that, and that's a several-day event. Um, it's— there's, there's a long history of hosting large events in Bethel that are much larger than the Board of Fisheries. And so I think, you know, I, I really think it's imperative that We go out there and when you look at the ability of the people of those regions, you know, when you look at the more remote villages, you have to fly from the village into Bethel by charter airplane. And those sometimes go about $10,000.

It's expensive out there. And you've got to fly into, you know, and so a lot of them will pool, will pool resources. The communities will pool resources to get into Bethel. Then they have to fly out to Anchorage and that In participating in these meetings is a large cost to those communities in rural Alaska. And I think it would benefit the board.

You know, a lot of the board members ask me what life is out like out in rural Alaska. Bethel is going to be an eye-opener for the board, that's for sure. But if you get out to the rural villages, it'll be a bigger eye-opener. And I think this provides a unique opportunity for the board to really— to get to know a region that has been, um, by, by, you know, meeting location, chronically underrepresented and under, underpresented to the board. Thank you,.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, thank you for that, Mr. Chamberlain. I mean, the biggest reason I asked the question was, I mean, this particular meeting, and at least what we've seen over the last few years, there's probably more participation, at least from the public, um, that come from all over the state. Um, and I was just— I just wanted to make sure that if hundreds and hundreds of people showed up in Bethel for a meeting where I could only assume would still warrant that kind of participation, that the infrastructure that's in place and the, you know, the ability to get in in flights and the amount of rooms that are available available so that we're not going to, like, you know, disenfranchise people from going because there's a limiting factor there.

But according to you, it doesn't seem to be the case. So I'll remove my objection. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I'll just note RC-102 from the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission, where they talked about the infrastructure in Bethel has grown and that they have hosted Board of Fisheries and Board of Game meetings in the past, including two Kuskokwim subsistence panel meetings of the Board of Fisheries in 2015, work session in Western RAC, and a Board of Game meeting as recently as 2017. Mr. Wood.

All right, thanks. I've always been for going out to different areas and checking them out, especially when they might be a little bit harder to get to. I guess my only problem, my only thought was not knowing So I went to Bethel last year, 2 years ago, for the Kuskwim River Salmon Management Working Group to partake in that. And that was my first time to Bethel. I was blown away at the size and the ability to get around there.

But I'm just wondering, just in terms of other people coming from other parts of Alaska, I don't know, is it just as easy to get on a plane and go to Fairbanks as it would be to go to Bethel, you know. And so that I wouldn't want it to create any added expense to the people to actually— well, that would be overly expensive to get there. I, I do think it's worth, uh, going to that community in particular, um, to have the meeting. So, but I just wouldn't want it to impact others too adversely. So.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, I understand those concerns, you know, for, uh, the people from the Kuskokwim to go to the AYK, they would have to fly into Bethel, then to Anchorage, and then up to Fairbanks. And that is— and that, that is a concern. And so where I look at it, and, and I don't want to, uh, I don't want to minimize the Yukon's importance on that, but Uh, but Bethel is a regional hub, and, and that is the, the spoke point for a lot of Yukon River communities as well.

Uh, so Bethel would actually be easier for a lot of those. Now, as you get into the Upper Yukon, uh, you're going to, you're going to— distance is going to be an issue just as it is. But for those communities, the, the flight, the added expense of, of going to Uh, going to Bethel would be the same as the Bethel communities going to, to them. Uh, the, the, the Bethel census area has about 56 communities as opposed to, uh, 43 on the Yukon. Uh, and the— that's give or take a few communities.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. I guess my only last question would be is for the department, is it— and, and, uh like overly added expense for the department to mobilize to get out there to run a meeting and get back? Like, does that interfere with the expense of the rest of the season going to other places?

Forrest, I mean, you hold Board of Game meetings out there, so go ahead.

Um, thanks for the question, Madam Chair. You know, I, I can only speak for my division. Um, but most of our AYK staff are located in either Anchorage or Fairbanks, so, um, you know, we— there would be additional travel involved with a meeting in Bethel and additional costs for my division. Thank you. And as a result, we may send fewer staff members.

Fortunately, there's the opportunity to build budgets and have them approved in advance of this, anticipating location changes.

Any other questions? There's a motion, a second, an objection. The objection has been removed. Are there any other objections?

Let's go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Call the question. Question's been called. Um, Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Uh, on the motion to hold the, uh, AYK meeting during the '28-'29 meeting cycle in Bethel. Carpenter? Yes. Irwin? Yes.

Seer? Yes. Carlson-Van Dort? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Hickson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

That carries 7-0, Madam Chair. Thank you. I think the next one we were looking at was the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, Chignik finfish.

Madam Chair, move the board—. Oh, sorry, stand by.

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong page. Next one is Bristol Bay finfish, which is proposed for December 6th through 10th, 2028.

Madam Chair, move the board host the Bristol Bay Finfish 2028 meeting in Dillingham. Second. And ask for unanimous consent. Object. Mr. Carpenter, would you like to speak to your objection, please?

Once again, I think this is even— and I know that the meeting has been in Dillingham before. Um, the time of year that it's scheduled is a little concerning to me.

My experience in Bristol Bay in the winter is that there's very little open. I agree with Mr. Wood, what he said earlier, that getting out to different parts of the state and holding meetings is, is an important function. And I don't think that they should necessarily all be in Anchorage, Ketchikan, or Fairbanks. But this one has— this one's more concerning to me in regards to logistics. Places to stay, opportunities to eat.

You know, this, this board did something very similar to this last year. They moved a meeting out of Cordova that had been there for 50 years based on these exact reasons that I'm bringing up right now. So I just want a little bit of discussion before, before we move forward. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks.

That's the same year that we decided to go to Bethel. We can't do cool every time, so I think, uh, we can afford to go one place that year. As much as I'd love to go to Dillingham to host a meeting, we just chose Bethel. So I suggest we stay in Anchorage for that meeting. Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And looking at the, the meeting history, I think one thing that comes in is Western Alaska is chronically under- represented in terms of, uh, the board's presence and the board's willingness to travel out there. Um, you know, we, we've been— I've been to Cordova, I've been to Ketchikan, we hold Kodiak there every year. Um, Cordova, and I, I loved going to Cordova, and I think we should go to Cordova a lot. Uh, and we've done that in every area except for Western Alaska.

And I think the board, it would be doing a massive disservice to the people of western Alaska where, you know, this is— life is different out there. And I think the board needs to go and experience that. You know, in my time on this board, we've gone to a lot of coastal communities where the hub is, you know, there's a large sport fishing hub, you know, tourism base, commercial fishing base. It's different out in western Alaska, and I think the board would be doing a disservice to the public and to itself by not, by not going out there. So I fully support Dillingham.

Mr. Irwin. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I'd just like to respond to Member Wood's point. We're going to Kodiak and Seward this year.

So there are years that we travel outside of Anchorage more than one, this year being a prime example of that. And when we do have meetings where they are met, they are in multiple locations in a year. It generally is in Southeast or Southcentral. So I think it is appropriate to host two meetings out of Anchorage when possible per the department's fiscal abilities and the logistics. I have been able to speak with some folks in the region who would be happy for our board to, to go out there.

I think that the fact that the Board of Game has been out there and that the Board of Fish has been out there has shown that we were able to do it.

And I appreciate Mr. Carpenter's points that he brought up as well, especially with time served on the board and experience with concern of, you know, food and accommodations and such as that. For the time of year of the concern with travel, we held this meeting in Dillingham in 2018, also in the winter, November 28th to December 2nd. Um, so as far as I'm concerned, I don't really have concerns for the timing of the year, and I think it would be great to get out to communities as much as possible.

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate going to remote communities and spend a lot of time and money on my own to do that, and because I'm a board member and I want to learn stuff, um, the I think Dillingham would be amazing to go to, but the user groups that are in Dillingham are typical— majority of them in a commercial fleet are not from in the state. Same with the sport fishing lodges that operate out there that want to— they'll all fly into Anchorage in order to have discussions on Bristol Bay. So I think in terms of just you look at the ability for the state, the money the state's going to pay to mobilize to be out there, and then the added expense of others to go out there.

In that same season is to be considered. And for that reason, I— at some point, I agree that we should prioritize, or another board should prioritize, you know, that. But I, I think there is a limit on how much we should ask the board or this department to spend to get us out there in a season. Thank you, Mr. Wood. I got a couple thoughts on this in terms of the budget aspect of things.

First of all, there is no budget for this board to travel outside of meetings. And so one of the things that I have experienced as a board member is that it is very difficult to meet people where they're at, where the fishery occurs. And what I learned from that in terms of geography— and mostly geography, which is, as I said in the past, been really enlightening to me about how gear is deployed and how people fish Um, with respect to the commercial— out-of-state commercial fleet and out-of-state lodge owners that would have to fly to Anchorage, I don't think it's the job of this board to cater to those that can most afford to attend meetings. And, um, I think that there's something to be said for being present in the communities, um, where those folks often cannot afford to attend board meetings on a regular basis. And again, I think this is something that the department will have to consider in its budget.

A new administration will need to approve it, um, and that's, that's a discussion that the department will need to have, um, with the new administration and the legislature. So while I appreciate frugality, certainly, um, I think that we are pretty darn frugal just by the fact that we don't have any budget for board members to travel to meet folks where they're at. And so I'm, I'm in favor of it. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And, uh, just to add to your point, I think one of the things we look at is, um, that money stays in Alaska. Uh, it'll provide an economic boost to, uh, a community in a, in a low period, which I think an economic diversity for Western Alaska and a lot of the rural communities. I know When we travel to Cordova or to Ketchikan, we're providing an economic boost to those communities, increasing exposure for them. And I think we are providing an overall benefit to the state, especially in areas not as well served as Anchorage and on the rail belt. Thank you.

Okay. I don't see any other discussion. There's a motion, a second, and objection is the— objection maintained.

No. Okay, it is maintained. Um, Mr. Nelson, will you please call the roll.

On the motion to hold the, uh, 28-29 Bristol Bay meeting in Dillingham? Hickson? Yes. Wood? No.

Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter? No. Marit Carlson-Van Dort?

Yes. Irwin? Yes. Seer. Yes.

Motion carries, 5 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair. Moving on to the Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Island Chignik Finfish meeting, tentatively scheduled for January 10th through 17th, 2029. Miss Irwin. Madam Chair, move the board host the Alaska Peninsula meeting, 2028 meeting, in Anchorage.

Second and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, so moved. And the statewide finfish meeting for February 21 through 24, 2029. Mr. Nguyen. Madam Chair, I move the board host the statewide 2029 meeting in Anchorage. Second and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objections, so moved. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. Um, just something that came to my mind, um, after we had approved the dates for these meetings, one of the things that— one thing that I didn't think about was because of this new timeline that we're considering, we've really kind of deviated from kind of the long-term trend of like when these meetings would be held. You know, Bristol Bay is a month earlier, AK AKPENS a month earlier.

And I think the board has at least tried to schedule some of these meetings based on when the maximum amount of participation can be. And I don't think— we may have thought about that when we approved those dates, especially for the Alaska PEN meeting, because I think the time of year that the meeting is scheduled for now versus when it has been in the past is going to be a very big conflict for a lot of user groups because of the activities that they're engaged in. I don't think that that's a problem for the Bristol Bay people because obviously the season is closed. So I don't know if the board would reconsider just swapping those months. Was this online?

Is this posted?

This was only posted at the end of last week, Madam Chair. So. Just something to—. Yeah, I think, I think what— I think that's, that's a decent point. And I know it's difficult because we're— in my experience, we're almost always conflicting with somebody's fishery.

We are. Um, so I think that, you know, I think I would like to leave it in place for now until we can get some correspondence or input about if that is especially onerous. I think that's something that we could revisit under future miscellaneous business agenda, um, this cycle if we get more public comment about it being a conflict. Um,. Okay,.

Good enough. Is that fair? Okay, fair enough. And so if that's, if that's an issue, I would encourage people to let the board know, but recognizing that we're, we're pretty constricted with, um, you know, not, not trying not to meet in March going forward.

Anything else on this agenda item, Mr. Nelson?

No, I can certainly— Madam Chair, I can certainly look at the possibility and availability of flipping those two meetings and would encourage any stakeholders to, you know, email me or call me and give me their thoughts on that, and I can, I can, I can bring that option to you at one of our future meetings, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to agenda item number 11, which is the 2026-27 meeting cycle workload for us.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I, I just wanted to point out that two of the 2028 meeting dates conflict with the with council meetings, at least partially. So just in terms of staff availability, that may limit department staff availability for the, for the October and December meetings. Thanks. Okay, noted.

Thank you. Mr. Nelson,. Just to follow up on that, yeah, I know Mr. Bowers just brought that to my attention recently. I know I had looked at the council's website and I either overlooked it or these were posted recently, but when I was kind of working on this, I didn't I didn't see those conflicts. You know, we do have backup dates that we'll flip to if the preferred dates aren't available, and then if neither are available, I'll certainly come back to you guys with, with another alternative to get approved.

Thank you. Thanks again. And I'll just put it back on the record that if there are issues with that and we need to change the dates, my request is that that be prepared and ready for the miscellaneous business agenda at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting please. Okay, meeting cycle workload. Mr. Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, this is one where we, uh, this item's here because we just take a look, uh, you know, we, we set these schedules 2 years ahead of time, uh, before we even have received proposals or get a better idea about what, uh, hot topics may be coming up. And so what we do is we, we take a look at what we have scheduled for this year in light of the proposals received and, uh, adjust meeting schedules, um, if there's something that should be changed. Uh, you know, I always would encourage, uh, reducing days off of meetings if we don't feel they're needed. That can be, uh, a savings to the board and to, to stakeholders traveling to the meetings.

But in light of the proposals we've received, um, I looked at it and looked at previous meeting trends And I didn't see any changes that I had to recommend to the board in light of that, but I welcome any board input.

Thank you. Um, the only question that I have is related to Upper Cook Inlet finfish, um, with 12 days and 172 proposals. Am I reading that correctly?

I believe so. I believe so, Madam Chair. We're going to have some fun. That's a lot of proposals. So I just am wondering if we have anything, if 12 days is going to be sufficient.

The only meeting of that length that is comparable is Southeast. And have we take— do we have any trends or data? I think I was just looking for it through your tables to see 172 proposals. That's 14 per day, roughly. That's, that's pretty, that's a pretty good clip.

Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, it is, uh, if you look at, at the very last table in the document, um, it's got meeting statistics going back to the 2005 meeting, and this is actually almost the lowest number of proposals for an Upper Cook Inlet meeting. Those meetings have been longer in the past. But if you look at the proposals per day, um, for the meetings that have been scheduled, this is also on the lower end of the average of proposals per meeting day.

Okay, thank you for that. I just wanted to pull that out, have the discussion. Any, any, uh, anything else or any other concerns around the workload? I don't think it requires approval. I think we just wanted to talk about it, correct?

Uh,. It's already been approved. Yeah, Madam Chair, unless there's changes, there's no action on this needed.

Thank you. I think that kind of concludes, um, sort of the administrative portion of our agenda. We'll take a break for, let's say, 20 minutes, come back around 10 o'clock and begin considering agenda change requests and we'll go from there. Thanks.

Okay, welcome back on the record. The time is 10:05, and we're going to go and proceed with agenda change requests. And, um, I believe there's 13 to go through today. And I just want to instruct and remind board members that this is not a debate or a discussion on the merits of the proposal, but rather or not to accept them and whether or not they meet the agenda change request criteria. That policy for the changing the board agenda is found in 5AAC 39.999.

And I'll give— make sure that folks have had a chance to get that in front of them.

I believe it's been distributed. Okay, so again, just a reminder, it's not on the merits of the proposal or really the, the content of it necessarily, but whether or not it meets the agenda change request criteria. All right, we'll go ahead and begin with agenda change request number 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Heather Scanell, regional supervisor for Central Region. ACR number 1, increase subsistence fishing opportunity for salmon in the Copper River District, 5AAC01.610. Madam Chair, motion to accept the agenda change request 1. Second.

Board, or, uh, staff comments, please. Gotta get back into the swing of things here. Thank you, Madam Chair. This seeks to open the Copper River District subsistence fishery continuously from the start of the season on May 15th until 2 days prior to the commercial opening of the district. It also seeks to allow subsistence permit holders who are not commercial permit holders to fish in all district waters during subsistence-only fishing periods.

In the Copper River District, salmon may be taken for subsistence from May 15th until 2 days before the commercial opening of the district and on every Saturday during the commercial fishing season. When subsistence fishing occurs concurrently with a commercial fishing period, the time and area remain the same for both user groups. During extended closures of the Copper River commercial fishery, additional subsistence opportunity is provided through the department's emergency order authority. In December 2024, the board adopted a regulation changing the opening of the Copper River District commercial fishery from May 15th to May 22nd. The board also directed the department to limit the subsistence fishery to one fishing period before the first commercial fishing period.

However, it did not change the regulation. Therefore, in 2025 and 2026, following the board's direction, only one 16-hour period was allowed before May 22nd. At that same 2024 meeting, the board did not adopt Proposal 45, which sought to open subsistence fishing in the inside closure area described in regulation, regardless of which fishing area is being used in the commercial fishery. Um, is there a commercial fishery conservation purpose or reason? No.

Does this agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when that regulation was adopted?

Um, no. Beginning in 2025, the board shifted the Copper River District commercial salmon fishery opening date from May 15th to the 22nd to allow a greater portion of early-run salmon, particularly king salmon, to migrate upriver. This change was part of a broader effort to conserve Copper River king salmon, including adjustments to upper Copper River personal use and sport fishing regulations to better reflect current salmon abundance and migration timing. The department opens the inside waters area by EO to subsistence fishing in the Egg Island area of the Copper River District to provide for a safe small boat subsistence fishery near Cordova. This represents about a third of the district's inside waters.

Expanding inside waters access for subsistence users throughout the district would provide entry to the shallow channelized areas within the barrier islands, increasing efficiency for those targeting king salmon during subsistence period. When the department closed all inside and nearshore commercial fishing areas in 2025 and 2026, subsistence fishing in the Egg Island Islands inside areas remained open. Madam Chair, thanks, Heather. Board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the record, I do hold a subsistence permit on the Copper River every year. Just wanted to put that on the record for everybody. Um, I think speaking to the ACR and looking at the criteria, um, with the understanding that we dealt with something similar to this a couple years ago, um, I don't think this meets the agenda change request criteria. I understand that the Copper River AC and the Prince William Sound Valdez AC were both in support of this.

There was there was no opposition, at least I see from the index of comments. But I think there's a high bar for ACRs, and I also think that there's a meeting cycle coming up that if the merits of this proposal need to be debated further, I think the public has an opportunity next year.

Mr. Owen. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I was just curious if there was one of my fellow board members who is on at this time and recalls going through this process, whether or not they feel this is, you know, an error or it's being implemented or it's turning out differently than what the original intent of it was. Just wondering if there's anybody who wants to share a little history with me.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Trying to stick to the criteria, I don't think there's an error in regulation. I think that the board made a substantive change to the management plan that also affects the subsistence opportunity in Cordova. So I think that that was well discussed at the meeting in Cordova in December of '24. And I think that, uh, trying to not talk about the merits of the proposal, I think that if the public wants to bring something forward to the board, I think it would be more appropriate at that time.

But just because I don't, I don't think there was an error in regulation. Thanks, Mr. Carpenter. I agree. I think that was a concerted decision that was, you know, well deliberated by the board. So I don't think that there's any error.

My opinion, there could have a deleterious sort of conservation effect potentially. But I agree that this is up next year. And should be considered in cycle. Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd also like to say that I agree with the department's assessment of this in terms of meeting the criteria.

I think it has effectively done what the board intended it to do 2 years ago, and we will be visiting it again next year. So for those reasons, I do not think it meets the criteria, so I Will not support it.

Call the question. Question's been called. Um, Director Nelson, will you please call the roll? Uh, on ACR 1, Carlson-Van Dort, no. Carpenter, no.

Wood, no. Seer, no. Hickson, no. Chamberlain, no. Irwin, no.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. ACR number 2. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR 2, specify escapement objectives that must be met prior to opening the Copper River District to commercial fishing for salmon, 5A. Madam Chair, move to accept agenda change request 2.

Second. Staff comments. This seeks to modify the opening of the Copper River District commercial salmon fishery until at least 1-mile lake sonar daily objective has been met. It also seeks to provide further discretionary guidance to close the commercial fishery until the midpoint Miles Lake sonar cumulative objective has been met. In December '24, the board adopted a regulation shifting the opening date of the Copper River District commercial fishery from May 15th to May 22nd.

The department manages Copper River sockeye and king salmon runs to meet an in-river goal that accounts for upriver subsistence, personal use, and sport harvests, along with the fish needed to achieve sustainable escapement goals. In managing fisheries, the department relies on the best available information, including harvest levels, run timing, environmental conditions, age composition, and escapement estimates. Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation?

No. Does the agenda change request reflect effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when that regulation was adopted? No. Beginning in 2025, the board shifted the Copper River District commercial salmon fishery opening date from May 15th to May 22nd to allow a greater portion of early-run salmon, particularly king salmon, to migrate upriver. This change is part of a broader effort to conserve Copper River king salmon, including adjustments to upper Copper River personal use and sport fishing regulations to better reflect current salmon abundance and migration timing.

Early season Miles Lake sonar passage has lagged management objectives in 7 of the last 10 years, primarily due to cold springs with below average air and water temperatures. Low cold water and lingering ice delay salmon migration through the district in and into the river. To account for this, the department reduces fishing time and area to avoid excessive harvest pressure on early-time fish. Historically, reduced early season harvest efficiency during colder years has produced a compressed pulse of early salmon moving upriver, often meeting and then exceeding sonar passage objectives later in the season. The Upper Copper River sockeye escapement goal has been met every year for the last 20 years and exceeded 4 times, while the king— king salmon escapement goal has been achieved in 14 of the last 20 years despite historically small runs.

Copper River fisheries continue to be managed for long-established data-driven practices designed to ensure sustained yield. Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think similarly, um, this is actually a very complex proposal. I'm not going to try and talk to the merits of the proposal and what it seeks to change, but there is a lot of nuance in this when you talk about the sonar specifically and the department's ability to manage. But speaking to the criteria, I said, I think that what the department has said in regards to conservation, error in regulation, does this affect other regulation of a fishery that was unforeseen? I don't think— I think these— this particular topic tends to come up every cycle at the, you know, normal meeting schedule.

And I think it will probably come up once again. And I think that based on the information the department has presented, Um, I don't see anything in this proposal that meets the criteria, and I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I also agree with the department that it does not meet the criteria.

It's really quite a complicated ACR, and especially when their whole board cycle is going to happen next year. So to even consider taking this up right now seems inappropriate, and I believe it does not meet any of the criteria. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. And Mr. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I recall talking, uh, the commercial salmon fishery in the Copper River Subdistrict. Um, that was, that was a hotly contested issue that the board thoroughly debated, evaluated. I think I'd been pulled aside so many times on this. It's hard to— hard not to— it's hard not to have flashbacks of this.

And, you know, I think the Copper River is one of the best performing king season— king runs in the state, although it's not great by any stretch of the means. So I don't think it hits a conservation issue. There's no error in regulation. Everything the Board did at that was intended. And I don't think anything unforeseen would have happened.

I think— and so going strictly based on criteria, I know this issue is going to be a hot-button issue next year and bring popcorn, but yeah, I don't think it meets the criteria for this year, so I'll be voting no. Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, speaking to the criteria number 1, whether or not there's a conservation concern, um, I took a look at the last 10 years of escapements, and in the last, uh, from 2014 to 2024, this run did not meet escapement in 3 years: 2014, 2016, and 2021. It made it by a close call in 2020 and 2024, but, um, it exceeded the upper end of the limit in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023.

Um, so I can, um, respect the author's, um, desire to protect some of those early runs, but I don't see it meeting the criteria at this time, and I believe it would be more appropriate to be deliberated at a regular in-cycle meeting. Thank you.

Call the question. Question's been called. Director Nelson, call the roll on the motion to accept ACR 2. Irwin, no. Chamberlain, no.

Seer, no. Hickson, no. Wood, no. Marit Carlson-Van Dort, no. Carpenter, no.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

ACR number 3.

For the record, I'm Flip Prior. I'm the Aquaculture Section Chief, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ACR 3 asks to reduce the statewide private nonprofit salmon hatchery egg take capacity to less than 100 million eggs annually. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board accept agenda change request.

Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would reduce the statewide private nonprofit salmon hatchery egg take capacity from 2.6 billion eggs to less than 100 million eggs annually.

Uh, there are currently 29 hatchery permits issued to private nonprofit corporations, again with the 2.6 billion egg capacity.

Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted?

No. Private nonprofit salmon hatchery egg take capacity is regulated through statute. Administrative Code and terms in each hatchery permit. The board has the authority to directly amend hatchery permit terms related to source and number of eggs. The board may not adopt regulations or take any, any action regarding the issuance or denial of a hatchery permit.

And the board's authority can be found in Alaska Statute 16-10-440B. Thank you. Thanks, Lut. Board discussion.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you. Um, I, I want to touch on, on the regulations, uh, or the, the process in which this is done, so, uh, bear with me a bit. Uh, to the commissioner, can you explain, does the department have a one-voice policy, and can you explain that for the public? I don't understand the question.

A one-voice policy? So do Uh, are staff members able to testify contrary or introduce, uh, opinions contrary to the department's held positions in regulatory meetings? I speak for the department. Okay. Um, on all matters, but that's saying I, I have many staff meetings where we have the issues fully fleshed out and discussed.

But so as the chief executive, I, if there's disagreements among staff, I speak for the Okay, and, and I want, I want to touch on this for, for a bit because I had a conversation. I want to make sure that this is very specific to the agenda change request. I understand, and I'm speaking to—. I'm going to give you a little bit of latitude. Okay, the criteria only, please.

Okay. And so, and, and I, I spoke to, um, I spoke to a member of the staff and I, I asked, you know, okay, what is the most, uh, compelling scientific reason that supports, you know, the, this this merit issue and for peer review, and they said, well, they're— the universities tend to favor one view version of the other. You just said merit issue. I understand, but I, I, what I'm, what I'm speaking to is the Administrative Procedures Act and that we're following regulation. We're talking about the merits.

I mean, not the merits, the agenda change request criteria. I'm not going to say it again. Okay, and so my, my concern is that With, with one voice for the department, there is a lack of dissent, um, and I don't know that the board is getting a full understanding of what does that have to do with the agenda change request criteria, because under the Native Village of Elam case, the board is required to consider all scientific evidence when making a regulation. This is, this is not a regulation. This is whether or not to accept the agenda change request.

Okay, but, and I'm speaking to the current hatchery policies and the department's regulations. Madam Chair, point of order. Yeah, Curt, no. Okay, you can speak to the agenda change request criteria. It is very explicitly laid out.

None of the—. This is not a regulatory meeting. There is no conflicts that were declared. There is no regulation being produced. This is to accept the, the, the ACR or not, and that, that criteria is very clear.

Okay, I, I'll speak to that. I feel there is an error in regulation that we may not be complying with the law, and so based on that, I will be voting in favor of this. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I agree with the department.

It does not meet any of the criteria. The department in the last few years, we have discussed this at length. And I'll also just note that in, uh, RC004, um, explains that we are— the state has agreed to put the brakes on already. Um, so I suspect— I believe we should just wait and see how that works. And, um, so I will— I do not support this agenda change request.

Mr. Owen. Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a procedural question. So, um, I— this hasn't come up across my desk since I've been on the board, I believe. But when looking at criteria C, it asks if an effect on a regulation— an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted.

So are we able to look at this proposal, or this ACR, under criteria 3, even though there isn't a regulation on the books yet, or should that not apply? How do you correct an error on a regulation that doesn't exist? Thank you. That was my point.

Mr. Chamberlain. So another issue I'd like to speak to is one of the things we found in the— in just in this meeting is with the Karla Bush River, where the abundance of pinks was saturating. I think that in— that may be inhibiting abilities of Chinook to spawn in that. And I think that definitely, given that we're over all of them, in Chinook Returns, uh, conservator stock of concerns. Um, I think that's something we as a board need to also pay attention to.

So I, yeah, I, I don't need to go into it further. Thank you. Um, I guess from my perspective, we've had a lot of discussion process-wise and timing-wise of these, um, of these types of proposals. I don't think it meets the agenda change request criteria. I'm not going to be supportive of it.

If folks want to take a look at production-related um, policy and regulatory changes. I think that needs to be done at the statewide finfish meeting. Um, and I'll leave it at that. Any other discussions? Mr. Carpenter?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with that. I think that quite frankly, at face value, I'm not actually sure that this proposal should have made the agenda change request list. But, um, sticking to the criteria, I agree with the assessment. I agree with your opinion that this doesn't meet the criteria and that the forum that this should be dealt with is obviously a different one in my opinion.

Um, but I do think that something for the board to consider is that we have had a lot of process questions answered and debate with the public about when we should and shouldn't hold these meetings and proposals like this, but there's nothing that we really talked about specifically that applies to ACRs. So I think it's something that the board needs to discuss maybe in miscellaneous business at some point, but sticking to the criteria, I, I can't support this at this time.

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

On the motion to accept ACR 3. Chamberlain? Yes. Carlson-Van Dort? No.

Irwin? No. Hickson? No. Seer?

No. Carpenter? No. Wood? No.

Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against, Madam Chair. ACR 4.

Madam Chair, my name is Jay Baumer. I'm the Sport Fish Regional Biologist for South Central. ACR 4, clarification of drone usage and hook terminology in sport fishing regulations. Madam Chair. Move to adopt ACR 4.

Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you.

This ACR seeks clarification to— seeks clarification regarding the use of drones and remote control boats for sport fishing, as well as terminology used to scrap hooks in sport fishing regulations. Under current regulations, the use of drones and remote control boats are permitted to deploy a fishing line, but the line must be held in the hand— sorry, held, deployed— must be used to deploy the fishing line, but the line must be attached to fishing pole or rod or held in the hand.

Uh, during the 26th Statewide Board of Fish meeting, a proposal was carried that would further, further clarify the drones and remote control boats may be used to deploy fishing line, but the line must be attached to a fishing pole or rod or held in the hand. Single or multiple hooks are defined in regulation to provide additional clarity, guidance to anglers A page is dedicated in to the sportfishing legal hook type, is available in the Sportfishing Regulation Summary. Staff assessment of the agenda change request criteria. Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No.

Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted? No, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks for discussion. I'll take the first stab at it then. I'm just reading the actual submission and the conservation purpose or reason that was stated was to help anglers understand regulations and to make it where there isn't a giant gray area when it comes to remote control aid. In my opinion, and there was no answer for to correct an error in regulation nor unforeseen criteria. So I don't believe that that is a conservation reason, um, based on what the proposer submitted.

And I agree with the department's assessment, this is better handled in cycle. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Wood? Um, I agree with the department that it doesn't meet any of the criteria. It is interesting. I can't wait to talk about it at another time. But I'll be voting no for it.

And, but the use of drones is pretty interesting. Thanks. Call the question. Question's been called. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

On the motion to accept ACR 4. Carpenter. No. Irwin. No.

Seere. No. Karla Svendsen-Van Dort. No. Wood.

Nope. Hickson. No. Chamberlain. No.

Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

ACR number 5. Madam Chair, for the record, Patrick Fowler, South Central Management Coordinator for the Division of Sport Fish. ACR 5, reclassify European green crab from a Class A to Class B banned invasive species. Madam Chair. Move to accept ACR number 5.

Second. Staff comments, please. This would permit the possession and consumption of dead European green crab by reclassifying the species from a Class A to a Class B banned invasive species. A person may not possess any part of a Class A banned invasive species except when delivering them to a department officer under the provisions of an aquatic resource permit. Class B species may only be possessed if they are dead.

European green crab have been found in parts of southern Southeast Alaska, and the known distribution has continued to increase as monitoring efforts have occurred. In response to the staff assessment questions, is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Although European green crab are invasive species, this proposal does not address a conservation concern. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation?

No. And does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when that regulation was adopted? No. Madam Chair. Thank you.

More discussion? Ms. Irwin. I just have a question for the department. There was no specifics about conservation concern outlined in the author's proposal. It spoke a little bit more to the reclassification and order for, as I understand it, to be harvested for food.

Does the department— the department said they don't have any conservation concerns. What is the conservation concern of an invasive species such as this? Is it habitat, food, anything? Not trying to get to the merits, but specifically trying to understand whether or not there is a conservation concern. Yes, through the Chair, Member Imran, that's a good question.

And the department recognizes that European green crab are an invasive species that pose a risk to Alaska fisheries. And in evaluating this specific question, the department concluded that this action does not address an existing conservation concern, though it may be a tool in the response to European green crab, and allowing the consumption of European green crabs expected to have a limited impact on controlling their spread or achieving functional eradication. Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioner? Yeah, I think there's some value in discussing this, but I think it's during the regular cycle because one of the things I don't want to do is, is, is make this a legal harvest for sport fishing and then have people moving green crab around inadvertently until we kind of think this through. So I think there's some possibilities of addressing some of the issues with an invasive species with, with this process. But I think we just need to think it through in the context of the other fisheries that are occurring in the area, and that best occurs at a regular meeting. Thank you for those comments, Commissioner.

I was gonna kind of go down that line of questioning because, I mean, I think inherently in the proposal there's a conservation issue that's being addressed simply because it's classified as an invasive species, first of all. And I understand what the proposer is trying to do. I don't disagree with it, but I think that having that more comprehensive discussion in cycle, which I believe would happen at statewide shellfish next year, 2 years from now?

Southeast Shellfish? I think it'll occur at the next Southeast meeting. Okay, which is next year? Yes. Yeah.

I think that's the place to have the conversation. I appreciate what the proposer is trying to do, but I think it needs to be thought through carefully, and I'm not sure that tacking it on to any of the meetings this cycle is the right place to do that. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I echo those sentiments, but I just want to be fully prepared on the record and make sure we cover our bases on these.

We've known these crab have been coming around for a while, but they are moving up.

Are— and I guess to the department, are we concerned at the rate with which the green crab population is spreading that a year would cause an issue?

Can you restate that? I'm sorry. Thank you. Oh yeah, this is what I get for thinking up questions on the fly.

The green crab population has been moving up. The Pacific Northwest has had this issue for a while and they're moving up and it's a real problem for a lot of those areas.

Are we— the question is, are we making— you know, is the problem going to be significantly worse if we— by waiting a year? You know, I guess the real question is, can— is there a conservation concern or are we hampering our ability to recover those stocks or get in front of this problem by waiting a year? In my opinion, no, because again, I I view this as you can make it worse by having these fish, these crab moved around inadvertently and crab pots getting these and fishing in different areas of the state. So to me, until we think this through and think, ensure ourselves that we're not translocating these green crab to new areas, the risk is greater doing that than is, I think, waiting a year in terms of the natural issue. And we have programs in place right now.

We're trying to figure out the distribution of these crabs. And in areas where they are, they're being removed from the landscape by metal cattle and other groups. So I think we're doing things, but again, I don't wanna make the issue worse by inadvertently doing something that, you look at invasive species, you know, we put the animal mongooses in Hawaii to get rid of snakes and it just made another problem. So I just don't wanna make another problem worse without thinking it through. Thank you, Commissioner.

And I just would like to also state on the record that I know that folks are very concerned about green crab. They should be. And I know that there's been a really concerted and coordinated effort, especially by those in the, in the region, to try and address that, get ahead of it, and do what they can. To slow down the spread of the invasive species, and I commend them for that. But I, I would like to have that— I think it's more appropriate to have that sort of, again, that comprehensive conversation.

And I hope that that conversation includes those folks that are closest to the problem, that have been working on it actively on a daily basis, and that where the conversation should be held is in Southeast. Ms. Irwin. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Wood. All right, yeah, Mike, I was just— I agree with the department on this. It does not meet the criteria, and I was just wanting to point out that we could be discussing this next year.

So thank you. Yeah, Madam Chair, I just wanted to speak to the AC and public comments. We had an exorbitant amount of support for this one. Actually, no public comment or AC comment opposed it. So, and from reading through the comments, it's obvious that this is a deep concern for folks in Southeast especially.

And we got some very good comments giving us some really important background that I encourage this board to read and familiarize ourselves with in the event that we take this up in a more appropriate timing during the regular cycle. Appreciate all the public comments and the AC comments. It's hard sometimes when we have to look at the criteria and we don't see it meets those standards, but I wanted to acknowledge all of the efforts that people have put into writing written comments. And with that, Madam Chair, I'll call the question.

Question's been called. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. On the motion to accept ACR 5. Hickson. No.

Wood. No. Chamberlain. No. Carpenter.

No. Marit Carlson-Van Dort. No. Olivia Irwin. No.

Sear. No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair.

ACR number 6. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, James Jackson, Westwood Region Management Coordinator. ACR 6 and 7, establish a 10-day consecutive day closure between June 10th and June 23rd for seine and drift gillnet gear in the South Unimak and Shoemaker Islands June Salmon Management Plan, 5AAC-09365.

Madam Chair, move the board accept Agenda Change Request 6. Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This ACR would amend the South Unimak and Shumagin Island's June Salmon Management Plan using RC245 and a verbal amendment from the February 2026 Board of Fisheries meeting to allow 64-hour fishing periods followed by 32-hour closures for set gillnet gear beginning at 6:00 AM on June 6th.

With the final period closing at 10:00 PM on June 28th. Beginning June 10th, purse seine and drift gillnet periods would be limited to no more than 3 days in any 7-day, 7-day period and could not open for more than 24 hours in a day. Currently, the South Unimak and Shumigan Islands June Salmon Management Plan commercial fishing periods for set gillnet and drift gear begin at 6:00 AM on June 10th and there are 4 88-hour fishing periods interspaced by 32-hour closures, with the final fishing period ending at 10 PM on June 28th. The first commercial fishing period for purse seine gear begins at 5:59 AM on June 10th and closes after 68 hours at 1:59 AM. The second commercial fishing period begins 76 hours later at 5:59 AM, then closes after 66 hours at 11:59 PM.

The third fishing period begins 32 hours later at 7:59 AM, then closes after 88 hours at 11:59 PM. The final fishing period begins 32 hours later at 7:59 PM, then closes after 88 hours at 11:59 PM. If chum salmon harvest equals or exceeds 300,000 fish by June 18th, commercial fishing time is reduced in the South Unimak and Shumigan Islands fisheries by 44 hours during each remaining fishing period in June for purse seine gear. If chum salmon harvest equals or exceeds 450,000 fish by June 23rd, then the commercial salmon fishing— fishery will be closed for the remainder of June for purse seine gear. Staff assessment of the agenda change request.

Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted?

No. From 2023 through 2026, the commercial fleet and processors curtailed their overall harvest of chum salmon through continuous communication that enabled the fleet to relay catch information from one another in real time. The fleet communicated daily with the department on a regular basis that helped inform their self-initiated fleet closures. These were either individual section closures or entire district closures. And since the fleet began their self-initiated closures in 2023, neither the 300,000 or 450,000 chum salmon triggers have been met.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to be clear here. It's difficult to— there's a fine line when discussing these proposals with Criteria 1, which is a conservation concern, and getting at the merits of the proposal. So I'm going to speak specifically to Criteria 1 and the potential conservation concern without getting into the merits of the proposal. Since this, uh, Fleet has enacted, um, their self-regulated schedule.

There has been— there still has been an enormous amount of Coastal Western Alaska chum salmon taken from that fishery. In 2024, it was 119,000 that were taken. In 2023, it was lower, 58,000. In 2022, 95,000. The rate at which the Western Alaska chum salmon are still being caught in this fishery And while we don't have genetics for this year, but there were 486,000 chum caught in just the June South Alaska Peninsula fishery this year.

This to me is still a conservation concern considering the enormous amount of bycatch that's being caught during this time. I'm going to start my comments there. I have a question. Was the adaptive management strategy employed this year? Madam Chair, yes.

And the result of that adaptive management strategy was still the harvest of nearly half a million chum salmon in the June fishery? Madam Chair, yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

Um, likewise, this is kind of hard to focus on the criteria, but I'll try and base my questions around some of what what my fellow board members have tried to do in regards to conservation. Um, to me, there's definitely no— an error— there's no error in regulation because the regulation that the ACR is asking to put back in place is not a regulation. We had a current regulation that the fishery was managed under.

Um, so I, I also don't think C applies. But when it gets to conservation, I guess I just want to maybe— and if either of you two can't answer this question. Maybe somebody else can, because I'm thinking of all the conservation efforts that this board and the council has taken to try and alleviate some of the concerns in western Alaska over the last, I don't know, 5, 6, 7 years. Could you maybe touch on, did you manage the fishery with the old regulations that were in the book, not the ones that were passed and then thrown out? That's the first question.

And second question is, could you talk maybe, and if you can't, maybe somebody else can, about what specific to like the Yukon, how was the escapement this year? You know, based on— I'm thinking about it from a conservation point of view.

Well, I can handle number one. The first question, Yes, it was prosecuted the way that the fishery has been for the last several years. We did not initiate the new regulation.

Through the chair, I'll take the second part of that. So in general, in 2026, Siwak chum salmon escapement improved relative to 2025. For Yukon summer chum in particular, The sonar passage at Pilot Station was about a little over 1.1 million fish, so it's well within the drainage-wide escapement goal.

Thank you. And so I guess the final question— maybe it's not a question, maybe it's a statement that I'll make.

You know, I'm trying to focus on the criteria here because that's what we're being asked to do. We have a policy specifically for agenda change requests. So, um, while I understand that there are board members that think there's probably always going to be a conservation concern, I think that the efforts that this body and other bodies have taken have done a lot to try and mitigate that. And I think that escapement levels have started to show that. But specifically, and I've brought this up at many meetings in the past, Number 2, in the policy, the board will not accept an agenda change request that's predominantly allocative.

And from my point of view, you can't— you can hardly have a proposal that comes before the board that's not allocative. And so I kind of look at that and take that very seriously. And it's not just allocative from a commercial point of view, it's just allocative in general. And so I think the board needs to think about this because at a regularly scheduled meeting where a proposal comes before this body, that is the exactly the time to deal with allocative proposals. And I think that that is why specifically number 2 is in this policy.

So for that, I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I appreciate your comments and I agree with many of them. Um, I don't I don't necessarily agree with your comments related to number 2. Because the allocative aspects of the regulation change were contemplated at a regular meeting.

Thoroughly contemplated at a regular meeting. I agree with you kind of on the conservation aspect, and I agree with you on correcting error in regulation. I don't think there's an error to correct in the regulation. However, with respect to correct an effect on a fishery that was unforeseen when a regulation was adopted. There was a regulation that was adopted.

It was adopted in a vote of 4-3 by this board. It was voided by a legally questionable and unprecedented action by the Department of Law. And I think that definitely falls squarely into the unforeseen category. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I've beaten the, the public up enough on, on the Department of Law. I will rest on my correspondence, uh, with the Department of Law. I received earlier, um, as to allocation, I, I want to point out that subsistence fishing on the main stem for significant periods in the Yukon is, uh, is closed. Uh, subsistence fishing in the Kuskokwim is limited. And so if we're talking allocation when those fish go past Area M, there's not many people that are harvesting those.

And so what I, I say, you know, to who are we allocating? And I say to the spawning beds. Um, I'm— so I'll rest at that. Mr. Wood, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

To the department, um, in terms of conservation, you manage this under the management plan that's been in place the last 6 years or more. What conservation measures were taken throughout the season? Because you do have these triggers, 300,000 and then 450,000. What conservation measures were taken to stay below those triggers? And was there, was there more chum in the water this year than there have been in the past?

Through the chair, Mr. Wood. The department didn't take any specific conservation measures. However, the fleet's adaptive management program, they did have specific area closures. They informed the department, of course, about this. Right.

And then they had some broad area closures as well. And like I said earlier, we did not reach any of those triggers. We did not reach the 300,000 or we did not reach the 450,000. As for whether there is more chum in the area or not, It's hard to say with all those stand-downs that they did to try to avoid chum. Right.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I guess I'd like to address kind of what you said in regards to number letter C to correct an effect on a fishery that an unforeseen— when a regulation was adopted. As I sit here right now, And Mr. Lee can correct me, but we— there is no new regulation that was adopted. That regulation ceases to exist.

We are basing our decision on a regulation that has been in the book and is in the book currently. And so I don't see that as correcting something. And I— that at least is my interpretation of it. And if, if I'm stating something incorrectly then if the Department of Law would like to correct me on that, please do so.

Mr. Lee. Mr. Chamberlain, through the chair, I appreciate the question. I, I do think the language in this policy allows for different interpretations of the language in paragraph 1, subsection C. If I'll direct the board's attention to some of the comments that have been PC'd, or that were submitted as public comments, there are stakeholders that have raised legal issues with the interpretation of subsection C that do have merit. There is a competing interpretation of that, though, that under subsection C, which distinguishes a regulation when it was adopted versus subsection B, which is just an error in regulation. So I guess The distinction here is the board did adopt a regulation, and that's a threshold issue when considering subsection C, where it wasn't enacted into law, but that's not the— that's not the act that allows the board to consider this criteria for the purposes of the ACR criteria.

If I could follow up on that. Follow up. Thank you for that, Mr. Lee. And I'd like to know from the Department of Law, because there's obviously a process here— the board adopts, there's legal review, the lieutenant governor signs— is anything that the board adopts that's not signed by the lieutenant governor into regulation considered adopted by the state of Alaska?

It depends, Member Carpenter. Um, I think for the purposes of the ACR criteria under subsection C, it's when the board takes the action of adopting the regulation. Now, that is distinct legally from whether or not it is codified into law and becomes effective law on behalf of the state of Alaska.

Thank you. Can you give me another example of when that's happened? I can't off the top of my head.

Thank you. Yeah, just to sort of follow the conversation a little bit, I think to correct an effect, the effect was that it didn't happen. That's the effect in and of itself. The regulation was adopted. It didn't occur.

That's the effect that needs to be corrected and was unforeseen. Mr. Owen.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to address some of Member Carpenter's comments. The question about how the run did this year on the Yukon. While there was an increased amount of chum that entered the river, there's still— the Canadian border passage was still not met, which is a treaty obligation of ours. Additional border, additional streams and individual tributary escapement goals were not met.

And I do not, I, as Member Carpenter mentioned, any of these proposals are going to be, to some degree, allocative in nature, because that's the job of the board. However, I do not think it's predominantly allocative when we're not meeting, when escapement objectives are not being met, when border passage objectives are not being met, and when subsistence priority opportunities are not able to be reasonably provided. Um, and from 2022 to 2025, 320,000 chum— siwak chum have been caught in this area. So, um, with that, I'm gonna call the question.

Question's been called. Director Nelson, please call the roll. On the motion to accept ACR 6. Wood. No.

Seer. No. Carlson-Van Dort. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. No.

Hickson. Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against, Madam Chair.

ACR number 7.

Madam Chair, um, That last ACR was ACR 6 and 7, so you probably mean 8. Thank you. ACR number 8. ACR 8, amend the Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula to enforce king salmon caps with reductions in commercial salmon fishing time in the South Alaska Peninsula, 5AAC09366. Madam Chair, move the board accept agenda change request number 8.

Second. Madam Chair, just for clarification, I do, I, I do remember when Mr. Jackson read them into the record, he read in 6 and 7 at the same time, but Miss Irwin's motion was just to adopt ACR 6.

I'll clarify on record that my motion, the intention of my motion was to adopt ACR 6 and 7 in that one motion. Point of order, Madam Chair. If I could speak to that. If the, if the proposals are duplicate, is there a need for us to bring two ACRs forward, or can we just bring forward one of them if the merits are the same? I think they're functionally the same.

Can you correct that, Mr. Jackson? Madam Chair, they were virtually identical. What do you mean by virtually? There was, uh, in the justifications, not in the actual verbiage of the, the proposal, but some of the justifications were— there was like a slightly different wording in some things. Well, then let's take up ACR number 7.

So I rescind my motion to take up ACR number 8 and make a motion to accept ACR number 7. Second.

All right, we've got ACR number 7 in front of us. You can reference your comments in the previous ACR if you'd like. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR 7, establish a 10-day consecutive closure between June 10th and June 23rd for sane and drift gillnet gear in the South Unimak, Chumming, and Islands June Salmon Management Plan 5AAC-09-365, and I'd reference my previous comments. Thank you.

Um, I will also reference my previous comments. Any other board discussion? I'll reference my previous comments and call the question. Question's been called on the motion to accept ACR 7. Seer?

No. Wood? Nope. Chamberlain? Yes.

Irwin? Yes. Carpenter? No. Hickson?

Yes. Marit Carlson-Van Dort? Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against, Madam Chair. ACR 8.

ACR 8, amend the Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula to enforce king salmon caps with reductions in commercial salmon fishing time in the South Alaska Peninsula, 5AAC09366. Move the board adopt ACR number 8. Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This would create two king salmon harvest triggers that could come into effect if any statistical area in the South Alaska Peninsula area beginning July 1st. If commercial salmon harvest of king salmon greater than 1,000 fish during a regulatory fishing period, the statistical area or areas primarily responsible for the harvest of king salmon would remain closed during the subsequent regulatory commercial fishing period. If the harvest of king salmon surpasses 5,000 fish, the statistical area or areas primarily responsible for the harvest of king salmon would close to commercial fishing immediately and remain closed through August 10th. Currently on the South Alaska Peninsula, from June 1st through October 31st, all king salmon 28 inches or greater in length may not be retained by purse seine gear and must be returned to the water unharmed, or immediately returned to the water unharmed. A permit holder shall retain all visibly injured or dead king salmon.

Staff assessment of the agenda change request. Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No.

Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted? No. Due to concerns for Gulf of Alaska King Salmon stocks, the department took steps to conserve King Salmon by restricting numerous commercial salmon fisheries in the Westward Region. Over the past several years, these actions have included various king salmon harvest caps and non-retention of king salmon over 28 inches in length. And I'd like to also just point out that the, the current regulation of non-retention was passed at the February 2026 board meeting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion.

Miss Irwin, thank you. Um, does the department have any, uh, data for us on the number of fish of kings caught, um, in the post-June fishery?

Through the chair, Miss Irwin, just to be clear, you're just wondering if we have, um, the harvest numbers in the post-June fishery? Yeah. I don't have them currently on me, but maybe Forrest does. That's okay.

Um, through the chair, Ms. Irwin, uh, in 2026, the post-June, uh, king salmon harvest in the South Alaska Peninsula was 2,547 Chinook. Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm—. So I want to, sticking to 1A, fishery conservation and purpose, I think the number of stocks of concerns we looked at yesterday are particularly enlightening as to the dire necessity for protecting Chinook. There absolutely needs to be one. And in— and with these statistical areas, there were instances where a large number of Chinook were taken. The genetic information in there from those show that, you know, within the regions we're looking at and we're designating stocks of concern, these are tied to this, to the areas we're looking at today.

It's hard to argue that there isn't a stock, that there isn't a conservation purpose or concern when every one of the stocks we're looking at, you know, these are migrating fish and they do migrate through this area. The genetic information has shown. And so I think, yeah, absolutely. I also incorporate my RCED statements. On, on the law issue.

I have a question. It's not stated in the department's comments, but I just want to make sure that I'm very clear on this. Were elements of this ACR a part of any of the voided packages, proposal packages?

Madam Chair, yes. Okay, and which one?

Madam Chair, I can't remember the exact proposal number, um, but there was a proposal that was passed that had harvest caps, and that was one of the ones that was voided by Department of Law. Madam Chair, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Then I will reference my previous comments. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you. I, I guess to that point, um, the point that was made earlier um, that we are correcting something that was an error in regulation because something was passed. Are all of the elements that are included in this found in the language that was voided by the Attorney General, or is there additions to it? Through the chair, Mr. Carpenter, I don't know.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I, that's— I've been sitting here thinking about this as well because this— there seems like there's new stuff in here we didn't really debate. And, uh, I do remember the retention or not, and that's up to everyone else's, you know, your interpretation of conservation, whether you keep it or I'll let it go. Uh, so that was something I've been contemplating looking at this, and it looks like there's some new stuff in here that, you know, should be in a proposal next cycle.

I agree with the department's recommendations that none of these meet the criteria, and, um, this was debated heavily, parts of this last year. Madam Chair, call the question. Question's been called.

Call the roll, please. Madam Chair, if I— over here, man, if I may, and I'm just going to take this opportunity, like, in errors and omissions, um, just for the board's awareness, I think this most aligns with Proposal 141, which was invalidated by the Attorney General I just want to remind the board to make a clear, distinct record for this proposal than it did from the prior proposal, especially as it concerns allocation. At the— when considering the last proposal, the board may consider a proposal as an ACR that is predominantly allocative so long as there's new information that's found by the board to be compelling. And I think that's the express finding that was Fair. Thank you for that.

And so again, I guess I was referencing my previous comments with respect to the fact that it is an acknowledgment that it is allocative. Most of these are allocative. However, I do think that agenda change criteria 1C applies. Furthermore, I think it's even stranger because 141 is even more questionable that it was voided because I don't believe that was a 4-3 vote. Um, so I could, I could stand to be corrected on that, but, um, my, my rationale for considering the agenda change request number 8 is the same.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. Thank you for allowing me. I know the question's been called, but it's an interesting point you bring up, Mr. Lee, that the board can consider an ACR if it's predominantly allocative as long as there's new information that's been provided To me, new information is not something that was thrown out by somebody at the Department of Law. New information would be something that the board has brought to the attention, and I haven't heard anything personally that's different than the conversation that we had when 141 was passed. So to me, rationalizing that and saying that this isn't predominantly allocated based on that criteria, I don't, I don't think that this meets that threshold at all.

I'll just respond to that, that again, 141 was a 5-2 vote, um, and the new information is based on a legally questionable and unprecedented action by the Department of Law.

Mr. Carpenter, if I can respond to that, it may be legally questionable, and I guess that's for each person on the board to determine, but I think that the briefings have been very clear. I think that the determination has been very clear. That is the only thing that this board can rely on, is the Department of Law and the determinations that they've been— that have been made. But specifically to the allocative part of this, there's nothing new in this proposal, and I don't consider something that the Department of Law did to be factual information that changes the substantive nature of a proposal to be able to consider it as— when you look at the allocative criteria, it was very well laid out by Mr. Lee, and I think the board is far outstepping its bounds when it considers this proposal specifically. Well, I will consider it to be new information, and I'll vote accordingly.

Questions? Nicole, to call the roll, please. On the motion to accept ACR 8, Marit Carlson-Van Dort. Yes. Carpenter.

No. Wood. Nope. Seer. No.

Hickson. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Irwin.

Yes. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against, Madam Chair. ACR 9. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR 9, reduce maximum gill net depth on the Alaska Peninsula to 70 meshes.

5AAC-09-331. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Agenda Change Request 9.

Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This would reduce the depth of commercial drift gillnets from 90 meshes to 70 meshes in depth in the Northwestern, Unimak, and Southwestern districts. Currently, drift gillnets operating in the Northwestern, Unimak, and Southwestern districts may not exceed 90 meshes in depth.

Staff assessment of the agenda change request. Is this— is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No.

Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted? No. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just going to refer to my comments on ACR 6 and 7 for this one, to not get into the merits but the purpose for conservation. And I want to note that in the department's comments, it states that in 1990, due to concerns over harvest of chum salmon, the depth of drift gillnets gear were limited to 90 meshes. So it's been over 36 years that this concern has been addressed. So I'm just going to stick with most of my comments from ACR number 6. 6 And 7.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also reference my comments from ACR 6 and 7 and, uh, and my submitted RC.

Um, thank you. Uh, I believe that this was a duplication of proposal number 147. Which was adopted by the board during a regular cycle regulatory meeting by a vote of 6 to 1. And I believe that, again, that speaks to the policy criteria for ACR's 1C. And I'll leave it at that and reference previous comments.

I'm check all the questions, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I, I guess I'd like to address this one in particular because, um, it was something I supported at the time. And, um, and given what's happened in the last year, uh, this summer, both with law and the fishery, um, I do agree with the assessment of the department that this does not meet the criteria And, um, I'm, I'm sticking with that. I, I think there is no reason here that this year in particular showed that, you know, the net depth actually would have had a significant conservation.

Now, that being said, I might argue this differently in a next, next, next season, you know, next, next, um cycle, but it does not meet the criteria right now to take the time and effort to contemplate this, this year.

Questions have been called. Dr. Nelson, call the roll, please.

On the motion to accept ACR 9, Irwin. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Seer?

No. Hickson? Yes. Wood? No.

Marit Carlson-Van Dort? Yes. Carpenter? No. Motion carries 4-3, Madam Chair.

ACR number 10. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR number 10, amend the Alaska Peninsula area seine specification to reduce net size, 5AAC-09332.

Madam Chair, move the board accept ACR number 10.

Second.

Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This ACR would amend sane specifications to reduce the allowable size of gear as follows. Pursane or hand pursanes may not be less than 100 fathoms. Nor more than 250 fathoms in length.

A purse seine or hand purse seine may not exceed 325 meshes in depth. A lead may not be more than 100 fathoms in length, and the aggregate length of a seine and a lead may not be more than 250 fathoms in length. Currently, the commercial purse seine permit holders may not have a net that's less than 100 fathoms and more than 250 fathoms. And may not exceed 375 meshes in depth. Leads may not be less than 50 fathoms or more than 150 fathoms in length.

Staff assessment of the agenda change request: Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted?

No, and I might add that this regulation has been in place prior to 1985.

Thank you. More discussion, Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I'm going to reference my other— my last comments.

And, and at the same time, I just— I really want to call into question that I don't feel like law has resolved the issue that's before us. The us being allowed to vote on ACRs versus what's going to end up happening with these ACRs is, is not yet resolved. And this proposal right in front of us and the criteria to change it, it doesn't meet the criteria. I mean, it's— and There's no emergency. And this isn't like passing a law to go out and, you know, kill a bunch of wolves and bears.

This is like glacial speed here. And it will have no effect. So, and I'm not even sure the effect it's gonna have at wherever we fit it into this cycle this year. So I, I fully agree that this does not meet the criteria. It's very allocative, and I don't know how defensible it is to even do what we're doing.

So I, I'm still unresolved on that legal question.

Other comments? I want to correct the record. I misstated the vote on for ACA. ACR 9, Proposal 147, was actually a 4-3. ACR number 10 addresses language found in Proposal number 148 that was voided, that that one was the one that had a 6-1 vote in February, um, of 2026.

Um, again, just so that the record is clear, um, I, I believe that this, this does meet the agenda change criteria specific to 1C. Um, again, I'm not going to repeat myself, and, um, I will also reference my previous comments with respect to the allocative aspects. Um, and I'll leave it at that. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, yeah, I'll incorporate my previous comments, uh, And, uh, yeah, I, I believe this meets the criteria under 1A and 1C.

Call the question. Question's been called. Director Nelson on the motion to accept ACR 10. Chamberlain? Yes.

Marit Carlson-Van Dort? Yes. Irwin? Yes. Hickson?

Yes. Seer? No. Carpenter? No.

Wood? Nope. Motion carries, 4 in favor, 3 against. Madam Chair.

ACR number 11. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR 11, prohibit discard of king salmon caught in purse net gear in the Alaska Peninsula and Chignik areas.

5AAC-09373 and 5AAC-15364. Madam Chair, move the board accept ACR number 11. Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This ACR would prohibit non-retention of king salmon 28 inches or greater caught in the Chignik and Area M areas by permit holders from June 1st through October 31st. Currently, in both areas, from June 1st through October 31st, all king salmon 28 inches or greater in length may not be retained and must be returned to the water unharmed. A permit holder shall retain all visibly injured or dead king salmon. Staff assessment of the agenda change request. Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason?

Nope. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No. Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted? No.

Thank you.

Board discussion. I'll start with this one. Okay, so this proposal, reaching back into my memory, was, um, changed in ways that I really disliked, and I was on the losing side of that vote. I think it had really broad consequences, particularly with respect to the canceling of the study on king salmon and the sampling that would hopefully have provided information that would have helped inform future discussions in this space. But this was not part of the package that was voided, if I'm correct.

This was to rescind a vote on the side that I lost. And while there— I think that there can be conservation implications, um, I think those, those are just as relevant as the other ACRs that we just contemplated, but my argument is stood on the 1C aspect of the criteria, and for those reasons, I don't think I can support this agenda change request. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree it doesn't meet 1C.

I agree.

I disagree is 1A. I think one of the things we need is enumeration of how many Chinook are being caught. There is low mortality, or there is mortality for Chinook being released in there. And without that information, we'd lack the— we lack necessary tools to identify and regulate this, this fishery in a manner that can protect that. Without data, we're simply flying blind.

So So, for that purpose, I think this very much meets the qualification of 1A, and I'll be voting accordingly.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. Um, I was on the losing side of all the others except this one. Um, I don't think this meets the criteria either, but I do want to just call into question this idea of conservation. Like, a lot of the things that we see here where we, we argue in the conservation thing is like, is, is the actions that were suggested to be taken that were voided for the sake of conservation?

In my mind, they, they were. But then other actions that were taken were not. They went against the conservation. That's why I didn't vote for them. And so I just— I'm— this doesn't meet the criteria.

I won't vote for this, but I think this definition of conservation is really— it's, it's a tough one to pan out in some people's minds, especially mine, because, you know, I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Mr. Carpenter. And then Mr. Curt Chamberlain. I'll just make a brief statement.

I think it's very interesting that all the conservation concerns that we have around the state, that, that there's actually an argument to be made by non-retention not being the ultimate conservation concern. So I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Rugg. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, I want to point to ACR 8 when I'm speaking in favor of 1A. Um, without this ACR being put in place, basically there's no enforcement mechanism or no verification method mechanism to ensure that, that ACR 8 is even ever enforced. All everyone has to do is toss every king over.

You're never going to hit that statistical trigger with an unknown mortality of a salmon stock that, you know, we're— that in every river in South Central is under a stock of concern. What this allows is unfettered and unrestricted fishing without any enumeration, and it effectively creates a means to bypass ACR8. And so for that, I still stand on 1A. Mr. Owen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member Chamberlain. And I agree with— I agree with many of your comments. The criteria requires us to identify if there is a conservation concern, not how we're going to address the conservation concern, which gets to the merit of the proposal. So I believe that there is a conservation concern for king salmon, especially in traveling through this area, and to discuss the merits of, of how we address that conservation concern will come up to the table if we take this up. But as Member Chamberlain said, without understanding the rate at which Chinook are being bycatch, there's really no way for us to address that conservation concern.

And I'll call the question.

Question's been called on the motion to accept ACR 11. Carpenter? No. Irwin? Yes.

Seer? No. Marit Carlson-Van Dort? No. Wood?

No. Hickson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion fails, 3 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair.

ACR number 12. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACR number 12, allow commercial fishing for salmon with set gillnet gear in the Southeastern District mainland concurrent to commercial fishing periods for salmon in the Chignik Management Area, 5AAC09360. Madam Chair, move the board accept ACR number 12.

Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This ACR would allow South Alaska Peninsula set gillnet permit holders to fish in the Southeastern District mainland whenever the Chignik Management Area fishermen are permitted to fish. Currently, in accordance with the Southeastern District Salmon Management Plan, when certain biological and allocative criteria are met, the department will manage the Southeastern District mainland so that harvest approaches as near as possible 7.6% of the sockeye salmon harvested in the Chignik Management Area.

Staff assessment of the agenda change request. Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No.

Does the agenda change request address an effect on a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted? No. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I, I, I'd ask for a little leeway here for just a second. I'm not in support of this proposal, first of all, because I think it meets zero aspects of the criteria. I want to know why we're going to continue to accept proposals like this in the ACR process.

Because the, this clearly is a proposal that's trying to be put in front of the board prior to the normal meeting cycle. There has to be something that's adopted by the department, the Department of Law, and this board to address and tighten up the ability to get ACRs in front of us, because this right here is going to continue to go in this direction, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I agree with everything that you just said, and I think that that also, um, I mean, I don't even know if that needs to go to a process committee, but it could certainly. And, um, I do think that there's some language that should be considered to be developed to address the ACR acceptance criteria, if you will.

I think that's, that's reasonable. Other board discussion? Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks. I echo that, that sentiment, both submitted by Member Marit Carlson-Van Dort and Tom Carpenter.

This is really frustrating to see this. So hopefully we can figure out a different way, especially now since there's the— everyone can vote on ACRs.

Member Irwin? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I would tend to agree. When looking at the original ACR language, the author cites a result of a disastrous fishing season causing economic harm and forcing setnet operations to fold. We can't determine whether or not a fishing season is going to go well.

We can't guarantee harvest and, and or economic viability of the fishery, um, we can do our best to support it. Um, but then further down when it's stating it's why it's not predominantly allocative, it states that this action is about survival for the fishermen. And so to me it looks predominantly allocative and, and based on economic impact, so I won't be supporting this one.

Any other board discussion?

Call the question. Question's been called. Director Nelson on the motion to accept ACR 12. Hickson? No.

Wood? No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter?

No. Marit Carlson-Van Dort? No. Irwin? No.

Seer? No. Motion fails 0-7, Madam Chair. ACR 13. ACR 13 seeks to establish a statewide king salmon retention and disposition reporting standard for commercial salmon fisheries, 5 AAC 39.130.

Madam Chair, move the board accept ACR 13. Second. Staff comments, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. This ACR seeks to prohibit non-retention of king salmon caught in a commercial salmon fishery and require that all king salmon caught in a commercial salmon fishery be retained and recorded on an ADF&G fish ticket in one of the following three ways.

Sold, donated to a nonprofit food bank, tribal or village entity, or charitable organization providing food distribution services, or retained for personal use. Statewide regulations require all salmon caught and retained in a commercial salmon fishery that are sold or retained for a person's own use to be reported on an ADF&G fish ticket. Certain area-specific regulations have differing requirements for king salmon of certain sizes caught in commercial salmon fisheries. For example, in the Southeast Alaska troll fishery, there's a 28-inch minimum size limit to promote— and that's used to promote conservation of king salmon or to meet provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In addition, in 2026, the board prohibited the retention of commercially caught king salmon in the Nushagak District for a person's own use.

Lastly, the Commissioner has authority to require retention of all salmon caught in a commercial salmon net fishery for conservation purposes. Staff assessment of the agenda change request: Is there a fishery conservation purpose or reason? No. Does the agenda change request correct an error in regulation? No.

Does the agenda change request address an effect of a regulation on a fishery that was unforeseen when the regulation was adopted, no. This ACR seeks to amend 5 AAC 39130, a regulation that does not fall under the board's authority. Rather, all authorities for 5 AAC 39130 lie with the commissioner, although the issues raised by the ACR are within the board's authority. Requiring retention of all king salmon taken in Southeast Alaska commercial salmon fisheries will alter the age and potentially the stock composition of the catch. Per the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, significant management changes, they may alter the stock or age composition and incidental mortality of the all-gear harvest require discussion of the— with the Pacific Salmon Commission before implementation.

This also has the potential to alter impacts on stocks listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act that may affect the risk of exceeding take limits specified in the 2024 Southeast Alaska biological opinion. Madam Chair. Thank you. I'm going to speak on this. This is a very, very significant change that's being contemplated in this agenda change request.

And this is not appropriate for an agenda change request by any standard that I can think of, frankly.

Further, I think that these types of things should be taken up on an area-by-area specific basis. The proposer uses the Nushagak example. I was a proponent of that change, and it was a difficult change. And I'm still not entirely convinced that it was the correct thing to do because, you know, it's burdening a lot of organizations too that have to try and sample and, and distribute these retained king salmon. That being said, and I'll speak to my further— my vote on the mandatory retention aspect of the Area M fishery and my no vote on the ACR.

The longer I've sat on this board, the more I've been convinced that the non-retention policies don't work.

They don't work for gillnets, and they're questionable for seine at best. And if we're going to get a handle on the actual impacts of our fisheries on our depleting and struggling Chinook salmon around this state, we have to start counting them. And I can't figure out any way to start counting.

Besides retention. But like I said, I don't think the blunt tool of a statewide regulation that burdens a lot of organizations has an unknown, likely very significant cost, um, is appropriate. I think it needs to be done again on a on an area-by-area, fishery-by-fishery basis. There are appropriate recognitions on a statewide level of king salmon stocks. This isn't the way to get there, certainly not through an agenda change request.

Mr. Tom Carpenter. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of that. And I also think I'd like to make a similar comment that I did with the last proposal that It's a far stretch to me to even have a statewide agenda change request proposal, and I think that that's something that the board needs to consider.

That's, you know, all you have to do is look at criteria C. It says the effect of a regulation on a fishery. This is not a fishery, this is all fisheries. Right there alone, it should have been not put in this package. So there is no criteria that's been met, and I'll leave it at that. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. Uh, I agree with the department. I agree with the comments of, of my two other members, and this really leaves me baffled. Like, I'm gonna have to go ask Claude for the definition of conservation. So with that, I'll be voting no.

Mr. Chamberlain, then Miss Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, I understand I understand the comments that came before me.

I definitely get, you know, how a proposal like this or an agenda change request like this can have massive effects on the fishing industry and statewide practices.

But I think one thing we're finding is that Chinook are just doing terrible everywhere. Um, you know, we're seeing, uh, numerous stocks of concern. We're going to get a whole lot of new ones, and I'm, I'm going to be disappointed but not surprised to say, to see if like the, the proposed action is status quo. We're Managing this on a local level manages local practices but does not manage statewide efforts. So I disagree with the Chair on this, that sometimes you have to pull the bigger levers to get bigger results.

And when we're facing something like this, we just— we had a petition for an ESA listing. Um, the— we had a, a threat from the Canadian government for a Sarah listing on the Yukon, which forced the 7-year moratorium. If we don't take big actions as a board on these, someone else is going to take those actions on behalf of us. And so I think one of the things, if we're looking for conservation concerns on a stock as broad and as troubled as king salmon and Chinook. Yeah, the Chinook.

We need to be very willing and we have, we have to take big actions and broad enough actions to ensure that we're able to continue this way of life. Because if we do, if we don't, someone else comes in and makes a decision for us. So I think this does fall under 1A, and I think this does meet the criteria. I will be voting yes. Thank you, um, member, uh, Mr. Chamberlain.

Um, again, I just kind of want to revisit. I think this is incredibly blunt, and it also, again, the unknown costs could be very significant. And by utilizing this broad swath of a type of language, I mean, outside of the ACR, it It exceeds our ability to prioritize. So we can recognize that king salmon stocks are struggling across the state, but we can't manage it all at once, and hence the fishery-by-fishery aspect of it. And I think it's appropriate that this board and the public and the department look at the stocks that are struggling the most— Karlik River being coming to mind as one of the highest priorities, I think, um, and prioritize resources to be able to recover and understand why this is happening.

Um, and that requires a lot more discussion, and the appropriate place to do that is at a statewide level. Commissioner. Yeah, I'm going to weigh in here. I don't want to get into the merits of the proposal, but in my opinion, these are best taken up on a region-by-region basis. There's like we raised up with the Pacific Salmon Treaty in Southeast Alaska.

There are some significant consequences with how we manage under that treaty that would be raised here in the Yukon River. For instance, would we want to ever have the place where mandatory retention of anything caught in the net is is required or in a fish wheel? Probably not. I think there are some reasons we want to look at this carefully, region by region across the state. So I'm not very supportive of looking at this as a statewide regulation.

I agree we need to be bold and try to look for ways to get king salmon, you know, rebuilt across our state to get sustained yield. But I think this is the wrong approach to doing it in this case. Ms. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one is, uh, really difficult for me because, um, based on my comments for ACE in support of ACR-11, I do think that there is a conservation concern for Chinooks, um, and that in order to get more information and address those conservation concerns, we do need information.

However, I'm sitting here really analyzing the wording of all of our criteria along with points that were brought up by other members such as Marit Carlson-Van Dort and Mr. Carpenter, which I appreciate, is the language written in the ACR policy is a fishery conservation concern or purpose, and this is a statewide ACR. Now, I, I'm, I'm not privy to all of the board's history and establishment of, um, of what's— how to interpret a fishery. But based on the conversation among my colleagues right now, I feel as though many of us can agree that a fishery, for example, the South Alaska Peninsula where I just supported ACR 11, is a fishery. I'm not reading a statewide Chinook as a fishery. And so for that reason, I'm going to, I'm going to have to not support this.

But I highly encourage additional conversation and looking into this for, for the purposes. And with that. Oh, Mr. Chamberlain. So yeah, I, I, in looking at this, and I appreciate Member Irwin's position on a fishery, and if we're going to talk a fishery, I'm happy to talk a fishery. We have one in Upper Cook Inlet, we have one in Lower Cook Inlet, we have one in Copper River, we have one in every fishery throughout the state.

I, I think if we say a fishery, We've hit that, uh, that threshold many times over. Thank you. Call the question. Question's been called. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

On the motion to accept ACR 13: Wood? Nope. Seer? Nope. Carlson-Van Dort?

No. Irwin? No. Chamberlain? Yes.

Carpenter? No. Hickson? No. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 6 against.

Madam Chair. Okay, I think that concludes, uh, ACRs. We need to hear from CFEC at some point. Oh, we have Mr. Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a comment because on the last two ACRs there were a number of board member comments about screening these, that they shouldn't even come to board members. And, you know, I want to let you guys know kind of the only situations that we have screened these from you in the past.

And if, if we— when we do screen them they do go in the non-responsive packet that you reviewed regarding proposals. But we only have screened them out if the board clearly does not have authority to do what they're asking in the ACR, or if it's in cycle. Basically, if somebody had submitted an ACR for Upper Cook Inlet, it's a late proposal. They missed the proposal deadline. And so we reject those.

And now, you know, we will not accept ACRs for stock of concern determinations because that determination itself isn't a regulation change. If somebody has a conservation issue, they can certainly bring it and the regulations they're asking to change for that conservation issue. But if they're just asking for a stock determination, we will block those in the future. But we really will have to have some discussions, and I'm more than happy to work with the board through the process committee to come up with some clear guidelines, because I don't want some really gray area requests. I, I want something definitive.

Yeah, no, to screen these before they come to you. I understand that, and I think you're owed that. The, you know, board support staff is owed that. I think at a minimum, I think a discussion around statewide implications is a good place to start. Um, so anyways, Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, and, and I agree with you, Director Nelson. I don't think that you should be the arbiter of making this decision. I think it's, it's, you know, difficult to weed these things out, but I guess my question would be to you, is this an internal department policy about how this is? Is this something that the board has set precedent with in the past through a finding about what is accepted through an ACR, or is this just something that you've kind of like had to develop on your own? Because I do agree, we should be the ones that tell you what we want and don't want to accept, and we should give you that guidance.

So if you could clarify any of that, it would be helpful.

I don't believe we have a finding. This has been the practice that I inherited, as I understood it, about not accepting in-cycle ACRs and obviously not accepting ACRs that the board doesn't have authority to do. The stock of concern, that was a new decision we just talked about at this meeting, or we will talk about at this meeting. We talked about it in process committee. So yeah, I think a finding going forward, that would articulate it clearly for us, I'd welcome that.

Be happy to work with you on it.

Okay, so let's conclude the ACR portion. Let's take about a half hour, 20 minutes. Do you want to do break now or later? See if you see—. I'd like to do break.

Yeah, let's take a break now. So let's take about a 30-minute break. We'll come back on at 12:15, and we will wrap up with hearing from CFEC and then our miscellaneous business agenda. So we'll see you back at 12:15.

Okay, welcome back everyone. The time is 12:42. We are going to take a report from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and then we're going to get right into our miscellaneous business agenda, which is RC26. Welcome, Commissioner, and nice to see you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Commissioner, staff, Fish and Game, Public Safety, Law, and especially the public. Thank you. For the record, my name is Rick Green. I'm the chair commissioner of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, and with me I have our research section manager, Mr. Reed Johnson, who will be addressing a couple things later. So some highlights of CFEC this year.

It's been a very productive and busy year for our 52nd year in operation. We have added a new commissioner, and that would be Commissioner Tracy Welch, who because of some family issues could not make it today but wanted to. You will be seeing her at other meetings as we have made the decision to attend all Board of Fish meetings in case we can help you guys with anything. Couple of highlights. I know we've talked in the past years about our modernization effort, and that's because our IT was basically written when Donkey Kong was a big video game, and it looks a lot like it.

Thanks to the Dunleavy administration, they have put out an IT rating system, and we were happy to be rated second most important to get done. And so we have some new avenues to fix our IT or at least modernize it. We do have a couple vacancies we are hiring for to get up to full staff. This past year we held a meeting for an emergency proposal, as you're all aware, for the Beach St. proposal. That did not pass, although at the suggestion of the Department of Law, We have restarted that project as a non-emergency and will be having our meeting and vote along that again on November 17th.

Something probably bigger than anything else we're doing right now is because of the legislature, we have the process underway to create the new administrative area at the east side setnet of Cook Inlet. As we are taking applications for that today, we will end the application process by the end of December. All commission decisions should be made by the end of January. And then because of the way the law was written, any appeal will go to the Superior Court by March. So before you guys start up on your next meeting, we should, we should have all that done in that new administrative area set for you guys.

And for the department. Other than that, we have a couple of issues with optimum number studies, one of them complete except for a hearing, and then one that we're about to begin. And I will let Mr. Johnson address each of those.

Uh, good afternoon to the chair. For the record, my name is Reed Johnson. Again, I am the research section lead for the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. When we last spoke to you, we had started work on an optimum number study for the Prince William Sound drift gillnet fishery. That has been completed.

The results of that is a recommendation of 400 to 470 permits for the Prince William Sound drift gillnet fishery. Currently, there's 535 permits that are issued in that fishery. We haven't taken any administrative action on that yet. We have not proposed any administrative code, as the commissioner said. We are waiting for feedback from the public and we will be having a public meeting in Cordova in the springtime before the start of that commercial fishing, fishing season.

We have also been petitioned by the public to start an optimum number study for the seine fleet in Prince William Sound. So that is underway right now. We have just kicked that off. So we are currently surveying permit holders to get a handle on the costs of participation in that fishery. And we've also started to talk with the vendors, and we will be looking for feedback from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in the next few months.

Thank you. And with that, Madam Chair, we will entertain any questions. Thank you both. Any questions from the board?

Commissioner? Yeah, good, good report, guys. I've just got a question on the Prince William Sound. Optimal studies number of those permits that are— you have— you're recommending a number lower than the current number of permits that are out there. How many of those are active that that would be, or most of those inactive permits?

Uh, through the chair, over the last couple of years there's been about 410 to 430 participating permits on a yearly basis. So there's a pretty high rate of permit latency in this fishery right now. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

Two questions. One, will you be available during the other Cook Inlet meetings like Upper Cook Inlet to present on some of the facts regarding the different fisheries? Yeah, through the Chair, Member Wood, we've made the determination at the Commission level to attend all Board of Fish meetings. So we will be in Seward for Lower Cook Inlet, we'll be in Kodiak, and we'll be at Upper Cook Inlet as well, available for you guys. Okay, thanks.

And for the east side, you're saying that you're uncoupling the SO4H permit from the east side? Correct. Is that what that legislation is from? The legislation, yes, sir. So it'll be a whole new permit number or something?

Uh, the permit number would be the same. We're basically taking those permits and assigning them to a new administrative area. Excuse me, through the chair. Thank you.

All right, gentlemen, thank you for your report. Thank you for being here, and we look forward to seeing you at subsequent meetings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you.

That brings us to our miscellaneous business agenda located in RC 26. Um, the first item on the agenda is scheduling of accepted ACRs, um, number 6 through 10. Mr. Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know during this last break we talked about some potential time windows to do this. It'd probably be good to talk about how we envision conducting that meeting. I don't know if you wanted to lead into that, and then, and then I can, I can take over on dates if you'd like. Sure, thank you. So, given that we have Lower Cook Inlet in almost 30 days from now, We've got Kodiak scheduled in Kodiak, and then Upper Cook Inlet this year are scheduled in Anchorage.

I think that it's going to be my decision to hold a special meeting, an in-person special meeting to address these ACRs. And we will essentially go have a regular normal meeting to address ACRs 6 through 10, which are essentially 3 ACRs. In order to do that, we've looked at a couple of different time windows. Again, the timing is going to be difficult, especially with people's schedules, with being able to make sure it's available to the stakeholders. Right now, I'm tentatively looking at— I think we talked about mid-December or mid-February.

My intent is to try and address the ACRs sooner than later, so as not to influence— not influence, but cloud or somehow impede the other two regularly scheduled in-cycle meetings. So, Mr. Nelson. Yeah, Madam Chair, as you mentioned, we're going to try our best to see if we can get something in mid-December, and I think that the tentative dates that we were looking at would be the 13th through the 16th, a 4-day meeting. Um, the, the meeting venue is available, but I'm going to need to check on rooms and a few other logistics. And if that's the case, then we will make the announcement for that.

And if that's not going to work, then yeah, then it'll, then it'll roll to sometime in February. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Um, I mean, that's probably going to be a problem for me in December, but I'm not sure that that matters. But, um, I guess the one thing that I'm curious about is if we were to hold it in February, which would be better for my schedule, honestly, um, is there a possibility that the Department of Law will have any final resolution to um, some of the conversation regarding, um, anything that's been discussed at this meeting.

Member Carpenter, through the chair, yes.

So, I mean, I thank you for that, and I guess the only reason I say that is, is that I think that would probably add a lot of clarity to the conversation. I think it would be definitely fair to Mr. Chamberlain, but, um, it would also help alleviate probably a concern that I have in December. And, um, sometime in, you know, early February would work better for me. But that's just a couple points. Thank you for that.

And again, these are, these are just— we're just looking at the calendar about in-between meeting dates and how can we get this dealt with. Um, these are obviously just hyper tentative just because we haven't had an opportunity to pull members about their schedules. So, um, but the— in terms The timeframes, the reasonable timeframes for looking at a special meeting, an in-person special meeting, mid-December or sometime in February seems to be what's being sort of coming to light. Any other questions on discussion on agenda item 1? Ms. Irwin.

Excuse me. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak to an RC that was submitted on behalf of the Aleutians East Borough with regards to meeting location specifically, not date, but there was a request to hold the special meeting in either Sandpoint or King Cove. And I just wanted to speak to a couple of the kind of things that we are asked to consider when we're picking a meeting location. I—.

My comments stand prior on the prior meeting location topic and conversation that I believe we need to be getting out to these communities. Um, Sandpoint and King Cove do have, um, cultural and economic ties to the proposals that are before us. Um, I just wanted to address, though, some of the logistical concerns I have. Um, there's— as far as I am aware, there's no, um, daily, daily, every single day flights that go into either locations. I'm happy to be corrected on that, on RC, though.

Um, so flight frequency is a concern of mine. Um, whether during that time of year— other considerations we're supposed to look at is whether or not there's a hospital. I don't— I haven't been able to see that there is one. And then as we already scheduled two other meetings out of Anchorage for— oh, never mind, I'm sorry, that's beside the point because that's for another cycle. So I'll just— I just wanted to address that and say that I really— I validate and appreciate that request coming before the board, but I'm not sure if at this time it's the appropriate time for it.

Thank you. Thank you. And just because of the history of where these meetings have typically been held, you know, obviously we're looking at Anchorage for a variety of different reasons, but many of which are in the criteria for meeting and availability. Okay, moving on. Timing of the SOC determinations and whether to accept agenda change requests regarding stock of concern determinations.

There's a memorandum found in RC-19 drafted by Director Nelson. Would you like to speak to your memo, please. Sure, Madam Chair. Yeah, we— this is— most of this has been talked about in the process committee meetings, and we received some good public input on that. It was talked about again a little bit during committee reports when you were giving process committee updates.

So, uh, so I put this together to kind of give everybody an idea of how this would get implemented if the board agrees with this.

Essentially what we would do is next year's October work session would, uh, we would, we would begin to integrate this. It would be a partial integration, uh, and so at next year's work session, the department would present stock status reports and their stock of concern recommendations for the areas that are in cycle next year. Of course, that would be the regular time for that. So that will be for Prince William Sound, Upper Copper, Upper Susitna, and for Southeast. And also at that work session in 2027 would also receive the stock status reports and recommendations and make determinations on stocks of concern for the following year's cycle.

And that would be the '28-'29 cycle for AYK, Bristol Bay, and Alaska Peninsula Chignik. And then years following, it would be each work session would be doing stock of concern determinations for the meetings the year after that. So I also added here at the end that, as we have talked about a little bit, I was recommending that we, that we do not accept, that we reject any ACRs that we receive asking for stock of concern determinations.

Thanks. I think that reflects what was discussed in the meeting but also in the synopsis. That I gave at the beginning of this meeting. Do you think that that would require any additional time on next year's work session meeting? I, I tend not to think so because we're going to have a little bit of— hopefully a little leftover time after this meeting, but it would essentially be probably another 3 presentations.

I, I think we can do it in, in the, in the typical 2 days for a work session. I mean, most all of our recent work sessions we seem to be getting done. Either by midday or early on the second day. So I think we can accommodate it with the existing dates. Any questions?

All right, moving on. Department of Law recommendations to improve the board's process. Mr. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak about this again. A lot of my comments are going to be similar to what I made last week during the board's process committee meeting.

Essentially, if Well, I'll start by saying it for members of the public. I do believe that meeting is online, so I would recommend members of the public review that. But essentially, beginning with the 2026-2027 Board of Fisheries meeting cycle, that is this year, the Department of Law is recommending that the board implement a new procedure to help ensure that the board's regulatory actions can move efficiently through the Administrative Procedure Act review process. Before kind of delving into the recommendation, I want to be very clear that the board's existing process of accepting proposals from the public, hosting regional meetings with public testimony, staff reports, and the whole— all of it that the public is familiar with as the board currently conducts its business, that process is not changing. Rather, the law's— the Department of Law's recommendation will add and not replace steps in the board's regulatory process.

The simplest way to explain this is that the Department of Law is recommending for the board to hold an end-of-session adoption meeting to finalize regulatory language that has gone through public notice and legal review. Based on discussions that the Department of Law has had with the Department of Fish and Game and board, this meeting would likely— it would be relatively short compared to the regional board meetings and could be conducted virtually online. The goal is to give the board a predictable point in the annual cycle to adopt regulations in their final form that have been approved as proposals during regional board meetings. So essentially, just bifurcating the process. The board still goes through its meetings, approves proposals that have been vetted through the public process, have been amended through the process at those meetings.

After the proposals have been approved, Then they are converted into regulatory text, notice pursuant to the APA, and then the board will accept comments from the public on that noticed regulatory text, consider those comments at a final virtually held meeting at the end of the board's session each year.

And so with that, I— that might be a good point to pause for questions from the board.

Questions? Seeing none. I guess I should note that the board has been briefed on this pretty thoroughly through discussions that have been occurring for, at this point, at least in depth with the board for the last few months. And this is a recommendation that has been being considered at the Department of Law since at least 2025. And pursuant to those recommendations, that is now where I am just publicly providing, uh, the law's recommendation on this.

So, Commissioner? Yeah, yeah, Madam Chair, I want to thank Department of Law here, um, just for the members of the public that are kind of a little bit behind this. Basically, the The Board of Game lost a lawsuit that, that basically said that public wasn't provided an opportunity to have an opportunity to review the final draft regulatory language that they had developed at a board meeting. And that had to go through the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act. And as such, what's happened here is that board regulations that are approved at a board meeting need to go through a subsequent round of Alaska Administrative Procedures Act review and give the public an opportunity to view that.

I really appreciate that in so doing, to get to that step, that the Department of Law has recognized the value of the existing board process, including all the work that goes into, into crafting regulatory language based on the committee whole and what they hear at those meetings. That's going to be preserved in this opportunity. There just needs to be a secondary opportunity again to tote that language, regulatory language, out for another round of public review, which is 30 days. And then that will then formulate that regulation for submission to the, to the, um, Lieutenant Governor for finalization as a regulation. Um, again, I'm very pleased that we've preserved as much of this regulatory process as we can in that process.

And the only real impact of this is that we're going to have to make sure that we complete the work around this table probably by late February if we're going to have regulations go into effect for that summer fishery. So Again, I want to thank the Department of Law for working our way through this and preserving as much of this process as we could. Thank you.

Through the chair, Commissioner, thank you for those comments. I want to be clear for the public that this is just adding an additional legal safeguard to the board's existing process. As is the process at times invites litigation, unnecessary in my opinion, but that's my, that's my role as the board's attorney here. By adding these recommendations to the board's overall process, it will add an additional layer of transparency to the board's dealings as well as protect it from lawsuit down the stretch.

Okay, thank you for that, um, which dovetails nicely into our next agenda item, which is scheduling the March 26 statewide regulation packages for adoption. Mr. Lee. Madam Chair, thank you. Um, this is somewhat related. As the public may be aware, there is currently outstanding litigation against the board in the matter of Dan Anderson versus board of fisheries.

That case is located here at the Superior Court in Anchorage. Um, and I should add a little context about the board process. When the board approves regulations at any meeting, after it approves that package, it is sent to the Department of Law for the regulations attorney to review prior to it being filed with the Lieutenant Governor and codified into law. For the March regulations pack, or the statewide regulations package that the board adopted in March of this year, that package is still technically with the Department of Law, with the regulations attorney, and the regulations attorney has recommended that the Board of Fisheries take that package back out for a vote, essentially to ratify the language, the regulatory language that was crafted out of that meeting. This does not mean that the regulations package was disapproved.

This is merely just an additional step to add a— again, it's a legal safeguard to ensure that it is properly promulgated and codified into law. So, essentially, this is just going to be a review of the actual finalized regulatory language, correct? Correct, Madam Chair. And so, with that, this— it doesn't necessitate or require an additional round of public testimony, staff reports, things like that. The record that was built in support of the board's actions to adopt that package is still in play, and the board can rely on that when considering it at a ratification vote.

This will basically be, um, the first taste, if you will, that we get of sort of what this new process is going to look like. So essentially what is being, uh, will, will happen will be that this will— the, the regulation package that came out of the March 2026 meeting, statewide meeting, will be publicly noticed. It will be open for public comment for 30 days. The board will receive the public comments and then we will meet to, as you said, essentially ratify unless there's something else comes up. Correct, Madam Chair.

Questions? In terms of the timing and the scheduling of this, I think because of that 30-day public notice, um, we're looking at tentatively January. Is that what we're looking at, Director Nelson? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Based on some of the discussions we've had, you know, as you mentioned, this will go out for an an APA notice and a minimum 30-day written comment period.

Uh, from what I heard discussed, we don't— we will not be taking public testimony during the meeting to approve the final regulations, and it will be conducted by Zoom. Um, and, and right now we're going to look to probably try to do that sometime not too far after the Kodiak meeting this winter. I'm going to give everybody a few days to at least unpack and unwind at home, and then we'll be looking to schedule it sometime probably mid— early to mid-January. So any other board discussion? Moving on.

Oh, Mr. Nelson, I just wanted to add, because I didn't mention this on the previous item and I probably should have just jumped in then. Um, yeah, this, this does— just for the public's awareness, this does really mean that, um, uh, that our meeting schedule— and as you, you saw with the schedule you adopted for 2 years from now. And, you know, we particularly arranged that to avoid March meetings with the intent of trying to get all of the winter, regulation changes in place for the following summer. And that kind of means now that, meetings, area, area or regional meetings in March are problematic because we're gonna have to have those regulations out for a comment period and a meeting sometime in April in order to hit that summer effective date. So just as a heads up on that, I will also probably be bringing you recommendations to consider date changes for next year's statewide shellfish meeting, which is scheduled for late March, and we may try to move that to probably late February.

I know that, that may may be a fishery conflict, but it sounds like March as well may already be a fishery conflict for the shellfish fisheries. But I would appreciate any, any stakeholder feedback. Reach out to me on that because I will be looking at potential dates and probably be bringing you a recommendation at one of your future meetings this winter to evaluate a date change for that meeting. And the reason why so much time is required, because there's this additional 30 days for, you know, the board's um, ratification— prior to the board's ratification votes. And then there's an— after that happens, there's going to be another 30-day public comment period at the Lieutenant Governor's office in their process prior to final adoption, correct?

Uh, yes, Madam Chair. I don't believe there's a comment period associated with the Lieutenant Governor's notice period, but by statute it takes 30 days for filed regulations to become law. Thank you. So it's essentially an additional 60-day process, minimum 60-day process that we're going to have to accommodate. Mr. Nelson?

Yeah, just— yeah, because when we come out of a meeting where we are adopting proposals, there's time needed to turn that into draft regulatory language, that the work that Jill Klein typically does working with area and regional staff. And then it goes to LRLR and the Department of Law, and they have a certain amount of time they're going to need to get that done before it can even start the notice and the comment period for the final adoption meeting. So that's, yeah, that's just gonna be a shift in the future. And one other thing, I'm not making recommendations at this point, but we may need to look at future meeting cycles because, you know, the schedule we adopted for 2 years from now is jam-packed with not a lot of time between meetings. And whether we shuffle meetings between cycles to try to rebalance things, or look at future changes to the 3-year cycle.

We're just not recommending it now, but it's something that we may need to look at as we get a little bit more of practice of this under our belt and in the future.

Thank you. Remote testimony for advisory committees. So this is something, again, that was born out of conversations that I've had. There's been occasion over the course of my tenure as chair where it's been requested of me to provide remote testimony for advisory committees, usually when there's a weather problem in getting an advisory committee representative to an in-person board meeting. But this came up again in the Process Committee, so it's something that I, I'm interested in, in trying, is providing that remote testimony for the advisory committees.

They are a part of our board process It is important that we hear from those advisory committees.

We've done it a little bit here and there, sort of piecemeal. I've allowed it. It has been a little bit problematic in terms of making sure those representatives are available at the time that the board needs to hear from them. So I'd like to kind of pilot that this season or this cycle and, you know, have some structure to it And being that there is going to be, you know, very specific blocked time for remote AC testimony, that's on our agenda. Again, the public testimony portion of the agenda is sort of fluid depending upon how many people show up to provide oral public testimony, but I would like to try and expand the opportunity for the ACs to engage with the board, um, through this remote testimony option.

And with that, I'll just kind of leave it there, and then I'll— Mr. Nelson, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, we did talk about some of, um, some of this in the process committee meeting, and so just, just a few of the— to, to reiterate some of these things is obviously The ACs, if they want to provide remote testimony at the meeting, they'll obviously have had to have held a meeting, developed recommendations, and provided us with their written report, as you know, which is what we require before we will bring in an AC rep to a board meeting. So that'll have to have happened. And again, a blocked time during the meeting that the AC members, if they want to do this, that they need to get they're going to need to be available during the time that we set for that. And, and my thoughts would be that we do it at the beginning of public testimony because we, we kind of know that pretty well when that's going to be, rather than trying to do it at the end of public testimony because we never know how many people are going to sign up, and that's a more fluid time.

So that's, that's my thoughts on that, Madam Chair. Yeah, I also would just like to say that I'm contemplating this, and I'm interested in, you know, my fellow board members thoughts. I'm contemplating this remote testimony aspect for public testimony only and not the committees of the whole at this time. Um, the ACs can communicate with the board in real time through the RC process, especially since there's an online electronic submission portal. Um, it perhaps someday could be expanded into the committee, but I think that that would be particularly challenging and problematic.

So I'm contemplating this only just for the, the public testimony portion of the board's Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's great to get the AC to participate. The only question that I have, and maybe this is for the Department of Law, if we open up this forum to the ACs only, and I know it's a sanctioned part of this process, if it were challenged that other groups or organizations are traditional knowledge, or whatever the case may be, would be vulnerable to providing remote testimony to everyone?

Member Carpenter, through the Chair, not necessarily. The key analysis here is groups that are similarly situated. ACs are not similarly situated as other groups. They are a statutorily defined organization that is tasked with providing advice to the board. Okay, good enough.

Thank you, Mr. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make this quick. I appreciate all three members of the Process Committee for engaging in this conversation, and I agree we have a very unique situation in our state with how many remote communities we have, expecting them to actively participate in this process and seeking their advice. And so I think that it would, it would be fair to provide this opportunity.

On your note with the Committee of the Whole, You know, as it works right now, there's already, you know, can be a lot of pauses in between. There can be some inefficiencies within the timing of Committee of the Whole, in addition to the fact that it's after a lot of other deliberations or processes have already been put forward. So understanding the timing of exactly when that could occur in order to get an AC member set up on screen ready to go, I think could add more difficulty. And so I would be privy to practicing this and seeing if it works for public testimony first before Committee of the Whole, maybe. Yeah, that's my intention, is not to expand it to committee.

Any other board comments? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I, I really think it's awesome that we're providing this to just the AACs right now. It came up last year where You know, we had to get testimony from a very rural, remote, sorry, resident, and it was invaluable to have that testimony. It really paid off.

I think it adds to, you know, the expense to the department, could decrease it, and just having the availability of that local knowledge readily would be a huge asset. So I think it's a great trial period for just the ACs right now. Thanks, Member Wood. Seeing no other comments, moving on to agenda item number 6, which is the trial of this final committee of the whole idea that came up in the recent process committee meetings. Um, of the ideas that I heard, that seemed to be probably the most straightforward to attempt to implement.

Um, but I, I'm interested in hearing, uh, fellow board members' thoughts on this. This might be another sort of pilot or trial period that we do with this cycle.

If the membership is willing. So I'll just put it there, but I think this is an attempt to try and provide that opportunity to capture public comment or response on substitute language that is developed over the course of a meeting.

Mr. Wood. All right, um, I think this was a good idea that perhaps Member Carpenter brought up to our— but especially with the new, um, requirement that we have to kind of ratify all the regulations that were made, it puts the onus on the board to make sure that the process of hearing from the public is even The opportunity is there. So especially when we're— the board has taken a proposal and creating language and being able to get that back out in front of the public and debated and tweaked prior to voting on it is really important. So that's, that's why I think, and as we all know, there are certain proposals that draw the most attention. And need the most work.

And so having the opportunity to come back and, and talk about these before, so we're just not in a rush, are seeing in the morning and then standing down to figure it out, this would hopefully make sure that that process is more deliberative and more public input. And, um, and that way when it comes to the ratification process at the end of the season, there's no like dilemma of, uh, was this voted on correctly or not. To prevent some vote changing. So for that reason, I think it's a really good idea. Thank you.

And I guess as I'm just sort of thinking through how the chair would manage this, I mean, it becomes pretty obvious, I think, over the course of a meeting which proposals become what I call drivers.

Ones that significant substitute language time and effort is coalesced around. So I'm thinking that in terms of— there wouldn't be a high volume. I'm anticipating it, an average meeting of probably 4 or 5 maybe proposals that would be considered for this final Committee of the Whole. It would not, certainly not apply to everything. And the way that that would be selected, I think, would be from recommendations from board members directly to the chair.

And then those would get published. So, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. Yeah, I've thought about this a little bit too. I think it's a good idea to try.

I think that, you know, obviously we're going to have to pick a meeting and do it, and let's just say we choose to do it at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting in December. I think that the first go-around, I think, sure, we could give you suggestions, or at the first meeting you could look at the agenda and pick 5 or 6 of what you call drivers and just schedule them in their own committee, the whole, which would be at the end of the meeting, that usually is the ones that require the most substitute language moving forward. If we decided that it worked and it was a good idea, I think we could also, in miscellaneous business, consider the next meeting, and while we're in session, we could— we could, while we're legally in a process where we can make decisions and meet, we could also suggest for the next meeting or come up with a list of proposals that we would like to consider for that Committee of the Whole so that we didn't have to do it, you know, via email, I guess. So just, just a thought. Appreciate those thoughts.

Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you. I tend to agree with Member Wood's comments, especially, you know, we're looking at establishing a final ratification period for this meeting for this board to overview and look at the actual regulatory language that will be codified, and I see a final Committee of the Whole almost as the public's opportunity to see our final proposed regulatory language prior to the adoption of the proposal. So I think it's almost giving the public kind of a similar opportunity that we're going to have. And I also agree that it's a good time to do it as a trial period and see— work through these kinks of how exactly those specific proposals get picked and brought up to the table.

Thanks, and I would just add that I want to caveat this, that, you know, this isn't a commitment that whatever comes out of that final Committee of the Whole is exactly what will be passed, because there is a deliberative process and there is an amendment process in the deliberative process. So I think this is intended to be a recognition of the frustrations that we're hearing from the public in terms of how the substitute language process or timing, if you will, sort of works out over the course of these relatively short meetings. But I just want to make sure that it's very clear that the board should reserve the right to make changes in deliberations. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you for saying that, and I think that's an important part of this discussion and why the board is contemplating even trying this.

I think that there are meetings and our proposals that are very complicated, and, um, and there are things that happen at the last minute, and that's just kind of the nature of the beast. But I think to the public, and I'd like to say this to the public, if you are working on your own substitute language that does not have a board member's name attached to it, or you're not working with it, in my estimation, you need to have that in before the Committee of the Whole that's going to hear that because to me that's very relevant. It's very important to the public that they comment on language that's potentially used to be adopted after the fact. And I think that was one major complaint that we've heard recently. So I would appreciate if the public would consider that at future meetings.

And board members, because oftentimes board members are working, you know, their names are attached to substitute language. Most, most of the time they are. So any other discussion on that? Okay. The last thing that I just wanted to address before we do any final comments is we did receive RC22 from the Area M Saners Association that indicated that the proposed dates for the 2028 board cycle that we contemplated does create a conflict, and they're requesting it be switched with Bristol Bay.

Before we do that formally, I wanna make sure that Bristol Bay has an opportunity to weigh in on that, but I just wanted to acknowledge that, um, you know, if there aren't any problems with the Bristol Bay stakeholders switching that meeting, I think that that's reasonable to try and accommodate. So I'm not making any commitments right now. I want to make sure that we give folks time to communicate with us on that potential change. Anything else? Final comments.

So I'll go ahead and go around the table. Well, first of all, before we do that, is there anything else we need to consider under miscellaneous business?

No, Madam Chair, I've got closing comments but nothing else on miscellaneous business. Okay, um, I will go ahead and open it up to members. Are there any comments before we adjourn today? Mr. Wood? Yeah, I'd just like to thank the department for all this work on the stock of concern.

That they put forward and that they got to do. And then, and thanks for the public for being so, like, patient with the fact that we went through that executive session and you stuck it out here to the end. So appreciate that. Ms. Irwin. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I just would like to say thank you to the department and the staff for all of your energy and efforts putting together all the materials that was needed to to make this meeting go along smoothly. Um, I also would like to say thank you to all the members of the public who took time out of their days, um, and their lives to be here and to participate in the conversation. Um, I think that there's a lot more that happens at this work session that's very important that some folks aren't aware of, and so, um, I'm grateful to have had the public input on all of the issues that we had today and look forward to seeing everybody at Lower Cook Inlet.

Any other comments?

Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank board staff. Uh, Jessica, welcome to boards, and congratulations on surviving your first meeting. Uh, and Layla, thank you for holding down the front table.

Um, you know, the last probably almost 2 and a half years, uh, has been a long trek to research and purchase and assemble and test this new sound system that we put into place this week, and I am very impressed with how well it's worked, and that's due to a lot of testing, a lot of trials, and a lot of work from Annie and Savannah. So thank you for that. Now that this seems to be working well for us, we're going to probably be looking at upgrading the board game sound system when funds allow, because that is the old system that is now obsolete. And if the main the main guts of that decided to die, we would be out of luck. So anyway, thank you for all your work on that.

Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Fancy.

Anyways, I again thank you to all the board members. Thank you to the department staff and thank you to the public. You know, I'm interested in continuing to have conversations about how we improve this process. I think the process committee has been a helpful venue to have some of these conversations. I welcome input and suggestions.

From the public, from department staff, and from members of this board about topics to discuss, issues to discuss at the process committee level. And I'd be amenable to holding another process committee virtual meeting, you know, sometime over the course of the next— after Lower Cook Inlet, when we sort of sort of test pilot some of this stuff, just to get some feedback on how it's working and if there's suggestions on how to make it better. So, um, I think that's all I have. Not seeing anything else around the table. Nam shay, move we adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, and we will be adjourned at 1:27 PM. Thanks.