2025 Statewide Shellfish, Prince William Sound Shrimp, and Supplemental Issues (3/14/25)

All right. Good morning, everybody. The time is 8:52. The date is Friday, March 14th. And we are going to begin deliberations on Group 1 this morning.

Group 1 includes commercial crab and scallops. There are 27 proposals in this group. And we will begin this morning with proposal number 272, Norton King Sound King Crab Group. Department staff.

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Kevin Clark. I am the area manager for Norton Sound. With me today is Ethan Kelso. He is our crab biologist in Nome.

And also with me at the table is Aaron Turnin. He is the regional coordinator for AYK region. Okay, so I guess we'll get started. Proposal 272, 5AAC 34.910, Fishing Seasons for Registration Area Q, to modify the fishing season to open July 1st instead of July 15th. Madam Chair, who do it up?

Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, This proposal would change the start date of the Norton Sound king crab season from on or before— on or after June 15th to on or after July 1st. The current regulations open the fishery on or after June 15th. The effect of this proposal, if adopted, would not significantly change the management of the fishery. The mayor— the major buyer in Norton Sound often delays buying operations until the third week in June. In addition, this may shorten the season by a couple weeks, but we've been getting the guideline harvest level harvested prior to the regulation end date most years.

A little background for you. There's a— the season has changed back and forth, the starting date, from as early as June 15th, like it is now, to as late as August 1st.

The crab season itself, I mean the crab fishery itself, is managed in conjunction with the federal government. So we operate under the Federal Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab FMP. So it's an FMP fishery.

The department, the department is neutral on this proposal and has no biological concerns. This proposal would revert the king crab season opening date to a date that had been previously adopted into regulations from 1993 to 2008. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. Adoption of this proposal also is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion? Mr. Carpenter, then Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. You know, listening to public testimony, we definitely had some participation both in committee of the whole and written public comments on this proposal.

A couple of things that stuck out in my eyes were Number one, we have changing weather patterns, changing ice patterns in the Bering Sea and Norton Sound. We heard about the idea of increased water temperatures, and in my opinion, I haven't really heard anything that suggests that moving the date to July 1st is really necessary at this time. I think people that are participating in the fisheries and trying to deliver crab when the water level becomes much higher. There's, there's potentially some mortality rate associated with keeping those crab alive until they are delivered. And so, yeah, that's my, my general take.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. It's always interesting to learn about a new fishery in a new area. It's kind of a big gulp. So it's pretty fun.

This one in particular, reading the comments from the department, bottom line, it seems like there's no biological concern, which I made note of first of all. But then secondly, it came up that there are some safety concerns with this in particular. And even though the proposal was written a little further from the proposer may have been a little further north, how that impacted a fishery a little further to the south. And just noting that if you actually push that date out further, the crab are migrating out further. They're having— the boats are having to go out further and potentially get into harder, worse weather later in the season, which presented the safety issue that I made note of.

I, I really appreciate the criteria that is written up in the— that's RC-011 because it talks about the changing conditions and the depart— the role that the department should play in conservation of the, of the resource. But at some point, with the way Member Carpenter mentioned, the shifting weather conditions, and there is no pattern anymore, that you just— it's really up to each individual fisherman to decide when it's best for them to go. I think by putting pushing this date, it doesn't address a conservation issue. I think it addresses more of a safety issue. And so I'm not inclined to move it because if the crab are in closer early in the season and it's safer for the boaters and there's not a conservation problem, then I can't really support it.

Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I could have gone either way on this one. You know, on one hand, you know, you've got issues with meat fill or perceived issues with meat fill, but it also seems like the market is correcting for that in itself. But what, what particularly moved me on this is the testimony from the folks from Unalakleet, where they were talking about weather concerns and the crab moving offshore later in the year and that and how that may affect their fishery.

So I'm, I'm a slight no on this, but not overwhelming. But yeah, I think that's where I'm leaning on that one.

Mr. Sarray.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Northern Norton Sound AC was in favor of this proposal and the Southern Norton Sound AC was in opposition. Thank you. I have a question for the department. So in your comments, you note that this reverts back to the king crab season opening date that had previously been adopted from '93 to 2008.

What was the reason for the change? What was the reason for pushing it into June— from July to June?

Madam Chair, the exact history of that I'm not aware of at this time. I didn't necessarily delve into the history. Maybe somebody here that has a longer history than I do could help us out.

But I believe it was— I believe it was— I believe it was the market-driven. Any— Mr. Bowers, do you have any insight? Madam Chair, no, I don't have any additional information on that. Thanks. That is interesting because that was 15 years of it being in that.

—In that space. And it wasn't that long ago that it changed, I guess, although I guess it's coming up on it. Well, that's interesting to me. And the other thing that I've learned about crab management is that the market drives a lot of what the regs seem to be, which is, again, just notable in my opinion. I haven't heard any really compelling reason to change the date, frankly.

I've heard the, you know, the The reason being that it is because of meat fill issues. I've also heard from— in public testimony at this meeting that that's not really an issue. And so I think in making my decision, the things that are most salient to me have been the safety issue and the moving of the crab and just trying to account for the weather pattern changes, the water temperature changes that we also heard about at this meeting. So I also heard discussion of perhaps some kind of compromise in the middle date being June 20th or something like that. I'm not sure that that's significant enough, or I haven't heard it be significant enough to warrant a change.

So I'm struggling with supporting this and probably will not. Other board discussion? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Madam Chair, in answer to your question previously, original proposers for moving the date further back complained of more inclement weather and more cases of double-shell crab.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Are you still— are you noticing any of that at all now, or is that continuing to be an issue that has been expressed by either the department or the fleet or the producers—. Or the processors, I'm sorry? We do have more inclement weather in the fall, it seems. However, the season usually wraps up before that takes place. Same with double-shell crab.

Thank you.

Any other board discussion? I think I heard department cover cost. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairman. I won't repeat cost. I think the department ran through that.

And if there's nothing else, I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

I don't know if Director Wieda, is there any subsistence nexus here? No, Madam Chair. I didn't think so. Department of Law. For the record, Cheryl Brooking, Department of Law.

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 272.

Chamberlain. No. Carlson-Vandort. No. Zareh.

Nope. Svenson. No. Carpenter. No.

Wood. No. Motion fails, uh, 6-0, Madam Chair. 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 273.

Madam Chair, proposal 273, 5 AAC 34.910, Fishing Seasons and Registration Area Q, modify the start of the winter fishing season from the hard start on February 1st to on or after February 1st. Madam Chair, will do that. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, currently the regulations has a hard date of February 1st for the start of the winter king crab season.

This is— if this proposal were adopted, then it would give the manager discretion to modify that date to after sometime, sometime after February 1st based on that manager's risk aversion to the ice conditions. By regular— the little background here, the season dates were initially set from January 1st to April 30th. Then it was moved to November 15th to May 15th. In 2015, after— it's been on or after July— January 30th. Then in 2020, it was switched to a hard date of February 1st.

Again, this is an FMP fishery that we co-manage with the— that we manage with federal oversight. The department opposes this proposal. The department does not have the expertise or training to assess when sea ice conditions are safe in Norton Sound.

Maintaining a regulatory opening date removes the department from making judgment calls on ice condition. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. So recalling down in Southeast recently, we— the board made decisions to add criteria for when people should go fishing or not, like gale force winds and high seas based on a weather report.

And that would— that was to kind of create some order and fairness so people weren't risking their lives going out. You know, RC 11 that was submitted to discuss this a little bit, but I have a really difficult time putting the common sense decision-making practice of whether or not to fish in the hands of a department. That is something that a user should should have, whether it's just high seas and it's not time to go out in the boat, or if the sea ice has moved off and they want to go out and set pots on 3 inches of ice that might just disappear or carry their pots out in 4 days because they made a bad call. So I totally understand why the department doesn't want to be in that position. It doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons, not much less liability.

But now, learning about this fishery, there's, there's now a 20-pot limit. If you're— if back in the day, it sounds like if you lost your 20 pots, you could come in, get another 20-pot ticket, and go out and reset pots. Now you can't. You get one ticket, you got 20 pots of the year. If you happen to lose them because of bad conditions, then you're done for the season, is how I understand it.

The next is that the fact that these pots, once they're taken out, the conservation part of this being that they are still fishing. We had a brief discussion on biodegradable twine, and there was some confusion there, but there really is no confusion. If you look in 5 AAC 39.145 on page 703, it very distinctly says you need biodegradable twine. It's full untreated cotton twine with 36 threads. So there should be no reason for there to be pots still out there fishing.

Even if they get taken out by the ice and crushed, that twine might take longer to biodegrade, but it should still be biodegrading and therefore not fishing. And that's, that's already in the books.

And I might add that I also— the amount of subsistence pots that are lost compared to commercial pots, I think, sounds like it's a much greater chance of losing subsistence pots. So for those reasons, I'm having a hard time saying that this date should be changed. I think it's still up to the, the user to make these calls on what the best move is to do, not the department. But I'll hear from other people.

Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Swenson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do understand the department's concerns on this, but I think what we're experiencing right now is unprecedented climate change in And scenarios are changing. It looks like they moved the start date for this fishery back once already. And I'm presuming that's based on weather patterns.

And what we've seen is a lot of volatility, particularly in the last few years, as to weather patterns. And I think this year's weather in Alaska in particular is particularly illustrative of the need to be adaptive not only for the, for the department and the fishermen, or not only for the fishermen, but also for their department. And so as I was thinking of this, you know, I think the last time I heard the department's phones dialed out. So it shouldn't be an issue for them to call the local community, ask what the— ask the locals with the expertise how the ice pack is. And based on those recommendations, maybe, maybe have a little flexibility in the schedule.

So on that, you know, I don't want to see people lose their gear. I don't— you know, if there are pots ghost fishing, I don't— I'd like to avoid that if possible. I know twine should degrade at a certain rate, but just like twine, some of us degrade faster than others. So I think out of an abundance of caution and to create as much flexibility for this very small and specialized fishery in a very marginalized environment. I think a little flexibility would be warranted and would be in the best interest of the industry.

Mr. Swenson, I'd have to agree with the department. I wouldn't want to be put in that position. It's the same thing, and I'll just equate it quickly. I'm not going to get long-winded at all, just equate it to flying.

FAA gives you all the information about what the weather is and what's going to happen. They don't tell you when and where you can fly. They can tell you where. They don't tell you when to fly. And you make that decision.

So I think this is the same situation. The department shouldn't be put in that position to make a decision like that. Thank you. Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Northern Norton Sound AC and the Southern Norton Sound AC were both in favor of this proposal and none opposed.

Um, so ordinarily I would favor probably giving a little bit more discretion about when to open a season, but again, I struggle with the— I, I struggle with this idea of how do you assess the ice. Um, the department claims that they don't have the expertise to do that at this time, or uncomfortable with doing that at this time. It's a little A little bit different, I think, than having a NOAA weather report that has, you know, predict— can predict gale force winds or freezing spray conditions like we encountered in some of the proposals in Southeast. And I don't know, does this have— what is the connection? Or does— you said it's under an FMP.

Is there a similar federal start date? Not necessarily for this one, but is there— any consistency with the federal fishery start date that we should be aware of? Madam Chair, not to my knowledge. Okay, thank you. This date has ping-ponged around a lot.

It's settled on February 1st just a few years ago. I'm not real inclined to change that right now. I think some of the arguments that some of my colleagues have made at this table about it's really a judgment call on behalf of the fishermen makes sense to me at this time because, yeah, I mean, I think there's an expectation even if the department does consult locally, they open the fishery based on their judgment or an assessment, and I would be concerned that the public would take that as a green light on safety. And, and therefore, you know, I think it runs the risk of liability questions if there's some— there's death or accident or something horrible happens. So that is the part of it that gives me a little bit pause, that there is this expectation of safety and green light if you are making that assessment and when and how.

And to the cost aspect of that, I mean, the department, I think, notes that this is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department, but I wonder if you are tasked with having some kind of an assessment and criteria program, because certainly the board can't do that out of the blue. We would need to be informed in order to do that, which also makes me feel like this is a little bit premature. I think that there would be some additional costs associated with that, or there very well could be. Those are my comments at this time. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, I will point out that in RC-11, at one time on number 8 there in bold letters, it says the impact is severe unexpected environmental conditions on the handling and trapping mortality of crab as a factor. So that was in-season adjustments. And there was a fair bit more stability back in the day than there is now. And I mean, also note that, I mean, it's unfortunate maybe that this document doesn't exist anymore.

But at the same time, I come back to the idea that you can't legislate good behavior. You know, I mean, I just, I have a really hard time when it comes to the safety aspects of ice in this changing environment. And as noted by the department, there's no biological concern. They're supposed to be biodegradable twine. So if half those pots get crushed and the other half just float out, hopefully that twine— they're, they're not still fishing.

So I'm going to have to be no on this. Mr. Chamberlain. I'd just like to follow up on the safety aspects.

In—. When I was speaking with some of the local stakeholders at the recent North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the— you know, I was hearing from locals that were going out in a 16-foot boat 50 miles offshore in the Bering Sea to catch cod because the salmon were gone. When you're looking at these rural environments and you're looking at a marginalized economy, you know, people will do a lot to get an income or to get food. And so if we are maintaining a static, static fishery in, in February and the ice is unsafe, there is a very valid presumption that a lot of people will take that risk to go out and catch the crab. So I want to make sure the board's aware that when, when people are in hard times and you're in a, in your economy is unforgiving as western Alaska, a lot of times you will take risks that you've had to do.

And even on the Kuskokwim River, I've been in some pretty scary situations for the purpose of, you know, of getting the fish I need to eat or to sell to get money. So I just want to make sure the board's aware on that aspect. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Additional discussion? Mr. Carpenter?

Yeah, thank you. I concur with Mr. Wood, Ms. Van Doort, on this one, I think that, you know, putting the onus on the department to create the idea that safe ice exists or doesn't exist, I think, I think the user groups are best left to make that determination. I know I've had to make that determination many times in my career, whether I should cross the bar or not based on the weather conditions. And so I think that That's just something that's best left to the people that are participating in the fishery. Adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and adoption of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions, Director Bauer. Not an error in omission, Madam Chair, but just a little more information on fishing seasons as they relate to the Federal Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crab. So in that management plan, there are 3 categories of management measures.

In categories 2 and 3 are delegated to the state. So there was a question earlier about the federal season, but the state has the authority to set the season for these fisheries, even though they're jointly managed by the state and federal government. So yeah, as I mentioned, this Category 2 management measure, this will come up again with some of the other Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab proposals as well. Thanks for that clarification. I just wanted to, you know, if we need to be aware of any consistency in start dates, that's all.

It's just getting coverage. Okay, appreciate that. Errors and omissions. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 273. Carpenter?

No. Zareh? Nope. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Wood? No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain?

Yes. Motion fails, uh, 1-5, Madam Chair. Proposal number 274. Madam Chair, proposal 274, 5AAC 34.920, size limits for registration area Q and 5 AAC 34.925, lawful gear for registration area Q. This would increase the legal size of male red king crab from 4.75 inch, 4¾ inches to 5 inch, and mentions escapement mechanisms.

Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would change the legal size of male red king crab from 4.75 inches to 5 inches carapace width and, um, could adjust the escapement mechanism— escapement mechanisms to adhere to the new legal minimum size.

Currently, the legal— the legal width of carapace length— carapace width is 4.75 inches, and the escapement requirements are 4 rings that are 4.5 inches within one mesh of the bottom of the vertical plane, or no less than 6.5-inch stretch mesh. This provides— okay, sorry about that. Additionally, the Norton Sound red— the Norton Sound— the Norton Sound section red king crab harvest strategy provides a tiered threshold for— a tiered threshold for setting the GHL. And that could change slightly if this proposal were adopted. It would increase the minimum legal carapace width to 5 inches and require fishermen to install new escapement mechanisms.

Potentially, the guide line harvest level has been consistently constrained by the FMP for the overfishing limit and the ABC, the allow, allow, allowable biological catch as determined by the FMP. So.

Increasing, um, the red king crab GHL will not change by increasing the minimum legal size from 4.75 to 5 inches. The exploitation rate of legal male king— the exploitation rate of legal male biomass as outlined in 5 AAC 34.95— 34.915 is greater than what has been currently used to establish the GHL.

The GHL can't be over the ABC or the OFL, so we're always constrained by that legally. So legal size for Norton Sound— King Crab, a little background— the legal size for Norton Sound has been 4.75 inches minimum carapace width since the fishery's inception in 1977. This legal biomass— I mean, this legal size was based on the assumption of the life history of red king crab in Norton Sound. However, recent research has shown evidence that the functional maturity for red king crab is smaller than was assumed, and that Norton Sound male red king crab can mate multiple times prior to attaining legal size. The commercial allocations are divided into summer and winter, with 8% going to the winter season, that CDQ having an allocation of 0.75%.

Basically, this, this proposal would not change the management of the fishery currently. The department is neutral on this proposal, and there are no biological concerns raised with raising the legal minimum size. Madam Chair, thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

You know, we— there's several proposals that are going to come up to talk about changing the size of crab. But when I look at this one specifically, this is pretty much, in my opinion, you know, the 4.75-inch numbers is based on some biological information. And I think that the department has demonstrated that the conservative nature of that number has allowed crab to molt and reproduce enough times until that size. And I think the 5-inch is more of a market-driven thing. And if the processors don't want to buy crab that are smaller than 5-inch, they don't have to.

But the problem with this is, is it changing it to 5 inches If you got a crab on board under 5 inches, even though there's no biological reason for it, you're going to get a ticket. And so I just don't see a reason to change this right now if there's no biological reason to do so.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'd like to— that was my argument as well. I mean, it all of a sudden, the amount of discarding you're going to have of totally crab that is out of the breeding cycle at this point, that is perfectly legal now won't be. And I was going to ask the troopers if you know what the enforcement is on that up there, because I mean, all of a sudden, you know, you've got a crab that's, you know, 4 7/8, no longer legal, and, and, and you're getting busted for it. But I'd like to hear from the troopers what the enforcement is.

Through the chair, to answer your question in regards to if this has changed, how would that change our enforcement? I mean, to Mr. Carpenter's point, if the size changes, that's what we'll enforce. There's obviously going to be a learning curve. There might be some discretion up front on that with warnings, but, um, and the department doing education, you know, to alert folks on that. But ultimately, yes, they could get a ticket for that.

All right. Thanks. And in this case, I'm not going to let the market drive my decision. I think biologically this is a cohort of smaller crab. The—.

They'll sell the bigger crab to the processor. Maybe the smaller ones will go to a direct marketer or something like that in order to make up the difference. But I don't want to turn a legal crab that's biologically suited to be harvested into an illegal crab. So I'm no on this. Other board discussion?

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Norton—. Northern Norton Sound AC and the Southern Norton Sound AC were both in favor of this proposal. Thank you.

I'm going to reference my comments from the previous proposal as well. It is— it's just, just a, just a comment on, on the ACs as well. Like, the board relies a lot on the local knowledge that is brought forward with the ACs. This, I think, is kind of an exceptional or unusual circumstance, I would say, where we have both of the regional advisory committees in favor of some proposals. But typically, that would— that would be heavily weighted in my decision.

I just disagree with them on this for the reasons that I think have been well articulated around this table. But I just kind of wanted to note that.

I take a lot of weight from the ACs, and they are both supportive of this. And this is kind of one of those circumstances where I am having a very difficult time agreeing with them. And yeah, I am struggling with that. Any other board discussion? Mr. Wood?

No, I totally hear where the chair is coming from. I mean, on the past proposal we just had and now this one, I mean, we are trying to align what the department has to say by ecologically compared to, you know, the fishermen and then the market. And try to make a decision in an area that we probably have no— absolutely nothing about. But that being said, I mean, that's— I hopefully our comments reflect some research, but I really do rely on the ACs to give us guidance all the time. Mr. Carpenter, adoption of this proposal would result in an additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery if the, if the red king crab pot escape mechanisms are increased due to the larger legal size.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Any errors and omissions? Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 274. Svenson? No. Wood?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Zareh? Yes. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 5 against, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 275.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. For the record, Ethan Nichols, Area Manager, Bering Sea Aleutian Islands commercial groundfish and shellfish. Proposal 275, 5AAC 34.816, Bristol Bay Red King Crab Harvest Strategy. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. The intent of this proposal was to provide opportunity to revise and update the Bristol Bay Red King Crab Harvest Strategy used to set annual harvest limits. However, exploration towards this effort indicated that a more comprehensive analysis is needed to effectively provide options and recommended changes. So the scope of this work extends beyond what could be accomplished this regulatory cycle. The department recommends taking no action on this proposal at this time.

Madam Chair. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thank you. Can you describe what the scope of work required that is prompting this recommendation for no action? So what is being proposed? What do you need to do in order to re-evaluate this management plan, and what is the timeline that the department might be proposing to do so?

Madam Chair, Mark Stickert. I'm the Westwood Region crab management coordinator. Thank you for the question.

You know, in recent years, this fishery has been closed, and we closed this fishery based on not meeting a threshold. The, you know, When these harvest strategies tend to be developed is when stocks are generally healthy, and we mostly focus on the control rules that we use to set the tax, and we tend not to look closely at the stopgaps to close fisheries. And we have shifted the stock now from, from a point where the thresholds are functionally managing the fishery by closing it. And so understanding this has a huge influence on the stock and the fishermen, and the participants, we wanted to make sure that the thresholds we were using that closed the fisheries were as effective and representative of the stock as we could. This harvest strategy was originally developed in the late 1990s.

We find, we find that it's still a sound harvest strategy.

And we were attempting just to recreate the existing harvest strategy by updating the time series. And I think during this exploration, we realized that some of the features that we should be looking at are more environmentally driven rather than sort of stock-recruit relationships. And so we are working towards a full management strategy evaluation. We're essentially looking— instead of looking at bits and pieces of the harvest strategy. We're going to take the whole thing off the table and see if we have a more comprehensive strategy moving forward that incorporates things like environmental uncertainty, which are having, I think, a much more influence on these stocks than they have in the past.

And so, uh, we hope to have this underway, um, in the next several years and hope to have something in front of you by the next board cycle, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next several years and next board cycle. Those, yeah, 3 years. So, Madam Chair, maybe to be a little more explicit, this work would require sort of close coordination with the stock assessment author, who is a department employee, but that scope of work likely exceeds the capacity of what she is capable of accomplishing at this point, and so we're looking to contract this work out. Either through a grad student or an individual contractor.

We are hoping to use some of the crab disaster funding coming towards this system. Some of that money gets diverted into research, and we would find that this would be a really good application of crab disaster funds. Given some of the uncertainty happening at the federal level, that money hasn't landed yet. So once that money has landed within the department, we will look towards putting the pieces together to have the work done. We don't think the work would take— once we find the capacity, this isn't a years-long exercise.

It's something we can accomplish within a calendar year, and we hope to do that within this board cycle, Madam Chair. Cool, thank you. Can you give me a little bit of information about sort of the, the history of closures and openers in the Bering Sea red king crab fishery? You mentioned that the, you know, the thresholds were driving closures. I don't know how— when was the last time it was closed, or conversely, the one was the last time it was opened.

Um, are there any indications that you would open it? How are you getting disaster funds if you don't have an open fishery? I can keep going with my questions, but I can't— I'm trying to get a little bit of history on, uh, on sort of the, the opening and closures of this fishery. Sure, Madam Chair. Thank you again, very good questions.

Um, we've seen, uh, sort of, uh, from a high elevation, a gradual decline in both mature male and mature female biomass of red king crab in Bristol Bay for about a decade. The existing harvest strategy has a sloping control rule, so when abundance is high, the harvest strategy allows us to take 15% of legal males, and as those number of legal males declines, we step down to 10%. And then, then we've got these thresholds that look at both the abundance or biomass of mature males and immature females. And as we've seen this biomass decline in 2021, we were for the first time dropped below that threshold level that prompted a full closure of the fishery. That closure remained in place for 2 years.

So 2021, 2022, '23 season. And then in that time, we've seen mature male and mature female biomass stabilized and they flattened out. And we're seeing now some positive signals of increasing abundance. They're modest, but going in the right direction. Beginning last year, we sort of pulled back out of that spot where we were no longer below the threshold level to open the fishery.

The department reopened the fishery under some pretty conservative guidance where we lowered the fully prescribed TAC out of precaution. You know, one of the challenges of threshold management is it's very clear when to turn off the fishery, but when you turn the fishery back on, it's a little less clear. We would hope to see signals of real rebound and increase versus sometimes, you know, these are all survey-estimated numbers of biomass, and so you can be 1% below and 1% above And so we, while seeing some stability and seeing some modest increases, we didn't want to open the fishery based on just survey error. That's a real possibility. And so we opened the fishery.

We essentially cut the compute attack in half until we're seeing more of a modest gain. And we're starting to see that now. So the fishery is reopened and hope to see some rebuilding in the stock. Madam Chair. [Speaker] Thank you, I appreciate that.

And that's kind of what I was getting at. I was trying to get an understanding of whether or not this issue is going to remain closed. If it was reopened, if it would remain reopened based on what you're— the indicators, and then the basis or justification and how the department would reopen it and whether or not that's appropriate based on these environmental changes that you noted, which should be driving the assessment, or the reassessment, I should say. So I think you answered that question, but that's what I was driving at with that. Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter? [Speaker] Yeah, Madam Chair. I think in light of what the department has just presented us and the ongoing work that's going to be taking place hopefully in the next year or so, once they find somebody capable of executing that, I move the board take no action on this proposal at this time.

Yeah, I second that, but I also would like to— I really appreciate the explanation that was given by the department of why you're doing this. Look forward to seeing the results. And I guess my brain spins on a little bit on just how it also is impacted by the, you know, the global crab fishery and the pressures we're either under or potentially not based on how crab is being produced, you know, in colder waters and other areas of the globe. So thanks. So I have a second.

Did you want to request unanimous consent or—. All right. And I seconded that and I request unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on proposal number 275. Proposal number 277.

Madam Chair, proposal 277, 34, 5AAC 34.6XX, new section, Aleutian Islands State Waters Golden King Crab Management Plan. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, move to adopt proposal 277 with substitute language found in RC 47. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it substitute language for Proposal 277 found in RC 47. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would create a new state-managed only fishery in the eastern Aleutian area for golden king crab. This would be waters east— state waters east of 169. This would be limited to vessels 58 feet and under.

And referring to the substitute language in RC 47, this is a season, a fishing season of September 1 through April 30th. Again, state waters east of 169. With an annual harvest not to exceed 50,000 pounds of golden king crab. Pots may only be single-potted in this fishery. Longline pot gear would not be allowed.

There would be a total fishery pot limit of 400 pots, and the department will establish the individual vessel pot limit by dividing the 400 total pot limit by the number of vessels that register before the season opens. No more than 90 pots per vessel is allowed.

Additionally, during the state water season, pots may only be operated from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily, and vessel owner must provide catch reports daily to the department.

The department is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. This proposal, proposal does not present any biological or fishery management concerns. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Would you like to speak to the language? Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, when I saw this proposal originally in the book, um, it, it, it interests me, but I knew that there was some concerns, um, from the federal— from the people that participate in the federal rationalized fishery. And so a couple days ago, I met with the proponent of the original proposal and the different federal participants. And they all seem to generally agree that they were— and I think they stated that in public testimony and Committee of the Whole once this language was drafted— that the CDQ groups specifically are all very supportive of these small fisheries in state waters. But the real question was, how did we get there?

And so We met several times and we worked through the components found in RC 47, and there's general agreement that this is something that could be tried.

The department has stated that there's no biological concern with doing this. And so I think it's an opportunity for some of the smaller boats, specifically people that live down on the chain, to participate in a state water fishery that they currently have no opportunity to fish in because of the rationalized nature of the fishery.

And so that's the general formation of the language found in RC 47, and be happy to answer any questions. Board members may have. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Wood. Thank you.

I appreciate the effort that was put into this by Member Carpenter and the compromise that came together. I think this will really help allow access to the resource with smaller boats. And so I think it's a really decent compromise. So thank you. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I just add one other thing to that, you know, and I think the representatives of the rationalized fisheries spoke to this. You know, this is, this is a 50,000-pound max. There's no step-up or step-down provision. This is something that people that want to go and participate in this fishery are going to have to demonstrate that they can do it first of all. So the department has the flexibility to keep an eye on that, but there will not be nothing taken more than 50,000 pounds, and I think that was one of the big concerns.

And so that was something that was very important to put in this agreement, and I think that it satisfied all the users. And so other than that, I really have nothing further to add. I have a few things to read into the record, but I'll leave it at that for now. Mr. Zareh. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Unalaska Dutch Harbor AC was in favor of this and there was no opposite— AC opposition. Thank you. So I just, I just functionally have a couple of questions either from Member Carpenter or the department. So 400 total pot limit, 90 max per vessel. So is this an open access registration fishery?

I mean, can anybody who wants to participate in this come and request and register for it?

Madam Chair, that's correct. So you theoretically could have 400 boats register and each one of them get to use one pot, right? But if you only have 3 or 4, then the max they can use is 90, up to 90. They can choose whatever works best for their vessel. And as long as it stays under those thresholds, both by poundage and by pot limit, they can go play around with it, correct?

Got it. Thanks. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it's important because this is a new fishery to highlight a couple of things. To be consistent with federal— national standards, I think the guideline harvest level for this state water fishery will be set in consideration with the total allowable catch limit for the rationalized fisheries so that removals do not exceed overfishing limit or acceptable biological catch levels, which is consistent with Section 8.2 2.2 of the FMP. Golden king crab have a life cycle, and therefore it's a— it isn't a consistent time period when molting and mating occur. The proposed season dates fall within the open season currently established in other portions of Area O and are consistent with Section 8.2.5 of the FMP. The total pot limit of 400 and the maximum individual pot limit of 90 is established in consideration with potential effort in the fishery, the potential for conflicts with other fisheries, and also handling mortality of target and non-target species consistent with Section 8.2.7 of the FMP.

In creating this state water golden king crab fishery for the eastern Aleutians does not conflict with Magnuson-Stevens national standards. The proposed harvest limit will be set to prevent overfishing of the Aleutian Islands golden king crab stock, consistent with National Standard Number 1, and the fishery takes into account the importance of the fishery resource to the local fishing communities and does not discriminate between residents of different states consistent with National Standard Number 8 and Number 4. I'll go ahead and read costs. Approval of this proposal would result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. In addition to startup costs, participants were required to purchase a CFEC permit card, which cost $75, and 90 buoy tags if that was the allowable pot limit at $1.50 apiece.

A new Area 00 Statewater Golden King Crab Fishery is not expected to result in any significant cost to the department. The proposed seasons and in-season management needs generally align with the existing workloads of the department staff in Dutch Harbor. And if there's nothing further, I'd call the question.

I don't believe there's an allocative nature to this necessarily. I don't know, maybe Mr. Bowers might correct me on that. Through the Chair, Mr. Carpenter, so, you know, we did note in our staff comments that we're neutral on allocation. But in conversations with Mr. Stickert and Mr. Nichols, you know, we at this level proposed an RC 47, 50,000 pounds. We believe that we wouldn't have to reduce the federal TAC to prosecute this fishery.

So I believe that that sort of obviates the allocative aspect. It's it wouldn't be removing crab from the existing fishery. Thank you. Yeah, I believe that was my understanding. I'm talking with department staff and also the participants in both of these fisheries.

And so I think that's a general understanding. So for that, I call the question. I believe I did. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we had that on the record.

Question's been called errors and omissions. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraw? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 277 as amended. Zareh?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

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

Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 278.

Madam Chair, Proposal 278, 5AAC 34.625, lawful gear for registration area O. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 278 as the proponent has withdrawn support, and that can be found in RC44. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 278. Proposal number 276.

Madam Chair, proposal 276, 5 AAC 34.627, lawful gear for registration area O. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This would increase the pot storage depth limit from waters 75 fathoms or less in depth to 100 fathoms or less in depth for long longline king crab pot gear in the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery.

Essentially, this would provide vessel operators additional area and flexibility to store longline gear in the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery. Some of the concerns with the existing storage areas are that vessels transiting through the Aleutian Islands that may be sheltering in the lee of the islands during severe weather are— have the potential to entangle with stored gear. I think the proposer is advocating that additional area would limit some of these interactions. Madam Chair. Thank you.

More discussion, please.

Mr. Wood. Okay. I understand the idea here, the sentiment, because it's based on some safety concerns that he has of entanglement. The one thing that Unalaska Detarbor AC brought up is that the gear out at 100 fathoms could interfere with halibut longlining and was opposed to this for that reason.

I mean, it's always— when it comes to the safety of things, it makes me scratch my head a lot. But I might listen to what my other members of the board have to say about this. Before I make a decision. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, maybe a question for the department on this one.

Um, these spot pot storage areas, you know, it's basically defined by a depth, but can you store those pots anywhere in that depth, or is it a very specific, you know, demarcation box or something that is considered a storage area like other places around the state? Through the chair. Yes, you can store your gear anywhere 75 fathoms or less, so basically.

A ring of water 75 fathoms or less around hundreds of islands in the Aleutian chain. And these pots can be stored there year-round, doors open, unbaited. And then maybe just to follow up to that, so maybe— and it's probably going to be a little bit of speculation on your part, so don't do it if you don't think that it's warranted— but in regards to some of the things that the AC said that Mr. Wood made comments on in regard to potential conflicts with halibut longliners or sablefish fishermen or whatever the case may be, that could currently exist right now, even at the 75-fathom depth level. Am I correct? That's correct.

I think, again, the proposer had, had some concerns or had some experience with trawl vessels in the Aleutian Islands that are targeting atka mackerel and P.O.P., and they would like to be accessing waters 75 fathoms or less where there's currently stored gear. So the idea would be that opening up additional deeper waters might mitigate some of those interactions. But the flip side of that is that going out to 100 fathoms is currently where some vessels in the area like to longline for halibut. So there may be one more. So I understand what you say, and I assume you're talking about the Amendment 80 vessels that might be inside trying to catch atka mackerel in that particular depth.

So it's one side of the corner or the other, either conflicting with the longline fleet or you're conflicting with the Amendment 80 vessels. And so, um, I guess I'll just leave it at there for now. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Swenson, do they have to mark those when they're storing those pots?

Do they have to mark those with some kind of a marker?

Through the chair, yes. So this is long-lined pot gear, so might have 40 to 50 pots on a long line, and when they're stored in 75 fathoms or less, either end of the long line is marked with a buoy with the ADF&G number of the vessel storing the gear. I would think that that would solve a lot of the— I mean, I've been involved on boats and stuff, bear hunting and different stuff, and we got things tangled into the props or the— and I— that's a dangerous situation. Somebody's got to go down there and deal with it. I would lean towards that aspect of it rather than worrying about the longliners and so on.

Because they're marked. So thank you.

Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, just a comment on the gear marking. You know, these, as Mr. Nichols stated, these are longline pot strings and they can be quite lengthy. You know, some of these strings could be, you know, maybe over a mile long.

So the— yeah, there are buoys on each end, but it— you know, you don't know which direction that string might be running. The buoys are marked to indicate that it's a— excuse me— a set of longline pot gear. They have an SL marking, shellfish longline. But you don't know where that direction it's going, you know. So thanks.

Follow-up, Mr. Swenson. Aren't each end of that line marked though, so you could look at and see that better stay out from in between the two? They are. I suppose they can move around in there too. Yeah, they are marked, but, but as I said, the buoys could be over a mile apart, so you might not even be able to see the other end.

Mr. Zarey. Yeah, with me, I guess there's really valid points on, on both sides, and, and I think that the safety issue is more important than gear entanglement issue. And so I think going to the deeper water and being able to spread out more, you know, so there's less less problems in the close-to-shore safety issue thing is more important. And I'll just note that— where are we? I'll do it later.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. So are we talking about the safety issue being entanglement of fishing gear? Of one kind or another in either in 100 fathoms or 75 fathoms. And currently it's at 75, and the local AC on Alaska Dutch Harbor said that 100 fathoms would interfere with longline gear.

Is the safety factor dealing with other fishing gear, or is it like anchor or anchors getting caught up in these, or what is the safety part of this before we Throw that out there too much.

Through the chair, my understanding— again, this is interpreting the proposer's point of view— is that we're talking about vessels transiting in the Aleutian Islands. They may be cargo vessels, pleasure craft, other fishing vessels. When the weather picks up and you need to jog behind an island because it's your only shelter, Given the bathymetry of the Aleutian Islands, 75 fathoms and less is often quite close to shore and where these vessels are seeking shelter. So there is the concern that somebody just jogging through the night may be, you know, entangling with the gear, putting them in a dangerous situation, and also damaging the stored gear that's there. So that's sort of That's my understanding of the proposer's concern.

Thank you. What is the incident rate of this? Is any of this reported? This seems to be a bit of a stretch for me, frankly. I'm just going to say it, that the safety concern issue I think is a bit of a stretch.

I think it just boils down to you're in my lane and this is where I want to be. Those guys got to store their gear somewhere, and no matter where they do it, it's going to be in somebody's way. And the safety aspect of it, quite frankly, is Like I said, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch. But what is there reporting required around these incidences? Do you hear of them?

How frequent does this happen? There's a lot of space to move around, and these guys aren't ding-dongs with the pleasure craft who have never been on the water before. Madam Chair, we don't have direct reporting of these incidents, especially because these Incidents are likely occurring outside of the regulatory fishing season when the gear is stored. The only information that has been relayed to me is through the proposer. I'm not sure.

Thanks. Any other board discussion? Mr. Zarey and then Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Unalaska Duk Cháabur AC was in opposition and there was no support AC's.

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks. I'm going to rely on that AC's— on where they stand with this and just keep it where it is. So currently, so I'll be a no on this. Other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Approval of this proposal does not expect to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal does not expect to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions, Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 276. Carpenter? No. Zareh?

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

Svenson? No. Chamberlain? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal 279. Madam Chair, Proposal 279-5AAC-39.670, Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Individual Fishing Quota, IFQ, Crab Fisheries Management Plan. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would prohibit vessels from sharing and operating cooperative pot gear while both vessels are registered and participating in the rationalized Aleutian Islands Golden King Crab Fishery west of 174 west longitude, also known as the WAG. Within a gear sharing cooperative, and when multiple vessels are actively fishing, each vessel would be restricted to operating only the pots specifically registered to that vessel. But this would still allow for a final cleanout of another vessel's gear after that vessel has checked out of the fishery. So essentially, this would prohibit vessels from cooperatively fishing and operating each other's pots any way they wish while both vessels are registered, but still prevent pots from unnecessarily being rail dumped after a vessel has checked out of the fishery.

The department is neutral on this proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah.

So when you talk about checked out of the fishery, I assume the quota has been caught And how do you check in and check out? Is there something that they do with the department? Is the National Marine Fisheries Service who is.

Through the chair. So checking in and checking out of the fishery is all through the department. You check in for the fishery by completing a registration form, and a vessel is required to check out with the department within 72 hours of operating their last pot. This allows us to keep current registration lists that we share with the Coast Guard and other management agencies, but basically you have a window of time there where you need to contact the department when your fishing operations have been completed. Okay, and then maybe just to follow up to that then, so a vessel has a string of gear out, he has enough crab on board, he heads to Dutch to deliver, he delivers, he calls you, he checks out.

But his gear is still in the water. This would not prohibit somebody after he is checked out to either go back and haul that gear if he has quota left, or take those, take those pots and move them into a storage area. And that's still going to be able to— this would just disallow somebody from doing this while the reg— the vessel was still registered to participate in the fishery. Am I correct? Through the chair, that is correct.

Thank you. Board discussion?

Anyone? Mr. Wood. Chair, I will take a swipe at this. I mean, it sounded like this was in conjunction with a proposal that was withdrawn.

It—. It seems like if legally this works with the department and all, or with the enforcement, then it would be prohibiting vehicles from sharing. It seems to make sense in order to just make things cleaner and more organized. So I'm sorry I can't add more to it, but I'm just trying to— this fishery has been kind of blowing my mind. The number of vessels and the amount of gear they're dealing with.

So, yeah, I'd really— I'll wait to see if someone else can add to this. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I mean, listen, I've thought about this a lot, and I understand what the potential conflict could be.

Even though there's very few vessels participating in this fishery, it's obviously very competitive for the, for the best ground. And so I understand why this proposal is in there. I think this is reasonable, quite frankly. I think that this still allows somebody with gear in the water, with crab in the pots, once they've checked out, somebody else can go haul the gear, take the crab if they have quota, move the pots to storage. I'll just leave it at that.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you, Member Carpenter. That really helped me, and thank you for the storybook ending.

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

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 279. Svensson? Yes.

Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Carpenter?

Yes. Carlson-Vandorten? Yes. Ms. Zarey? Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. And I think we'll take about a 15-minute break at this time, and we'll come back on the record around 10:20. Thanks.

All right. The time is 10:30. We're back on the record, and we're going to go ahead and continue on with deliberations in Group 1. Um, we are on proposal number 290, I believe.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

For the record, my name is Nat Nichols. I'm the area manager for commercial shellfish and groundfish fisheries in the Kodiak, Chignik, and South Alaska Peninsula areas. Proposal 290-5AAC-35.510, Fishing Seasons for Registration Area J. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would change the season opening date for Kodiak District commercial tanner crab fishery from January 15th to February 20th. The department is neutral on this proposal. Madam Chair.

Do you have any other staff comments besides just what it would do? Certainly, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry, did we— I got a second. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Yeah, yeah, then yeah, give us a little more color, please.

Certainly, Madam Chair. So currently the season is, uh, January 15 through March 31. There are a number of provisions that let us know how to open that, including a weather delay provision. This is looking to shorten the season by 36 days, so it would be a 40-day season overall. There are certain seasons where the season extends beyond that 40-day that's proposed here.

This, this current year is one of those examples. So this year the season went for 42 days. So if adopted, there is the potential for this proposal to have the season closed by regulation prior to catching the full GHL.

The effects of a later season start date really would vary based on the individual operator's winter fishing schedules. There's a number of overlapping fisheries in the Kodiak area in the winter, Pacific cod being one of them, trawling for some vessels. So on average, 35% of the Kodiak Tanner fleet participates in some other winter fisheries. So how this schedule change would really depend on what those individual operators have on their schedule. And it's tough for us to— the department to describe that because it's so specific to the operators.

Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Then Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. This January 15th date, you know, I can't remember how long this fishery has been open again.

Let's just say the last 10 years or whatever it's been open. This is a limited entry fishery. What has this date always existed in regulation since the Tanner crab fishery started back up again? Through the chair, yes, the season— the current harvest strategy has been in place since 2001. There was a period of long closure during the '90s and under, and during that time the harvest strategy for the fishery was redeveloped, and the season date has been January 15th through March 31st for the entire time period of the current harvest strategy.

Thank you. I don't see— I didn't hear any public testimony about the— that this would be a positive effect on this fishery. I think in current regulation, the department can consider weather and things like that. I also think that, you know, and we've experienced this around the state where people that hold multiple limited entry permits or participate in multiple fisheries, they have to make an economic choice what they want to do and when they want to do it. And so functionally, I don't see a reason to change the date from January 5th.

15Th. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I concur. A lot of the comments were that there's, you know, having more time allows you more flexibility of when to go and not having to be pushed into going out in bad weather. And dealing with markets, it, you know, you've got to— it allows some flexibility on when you can deliver, and it slows— this sounded like the season slows down as it moves on.

So, and it could interfere with other fisheries. So for that reason, I'm just inclined to leave the timing exactly exactly where it's been for so long, and I'll be a no on this. Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the Unalaska Dutch Harbor AC was in opposition, and that was the only AC that was on the record here.

Thank you. Mr. Ziray, I don't see the Unalaska weighing in. I thought it was the Kodiak AC that was opposed. Mr. Ziray. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

I was reading. I had it—. Okay. The Kodiak AC was the only AC in opposition and there was no in favor of. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Thank you. Just making sure we're on the same page. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. E&O, Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. We don't have AWT with us, but he did not weigh in on any comments in his— in the wildlife trooper comments. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 290.

Wood? No. Carlson-Vandorp? No. Zarey?

Nope. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 289. Madam Chair, Proposal 289, 5AAC 35.525, lawful gear for registration area J.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would establish a fixed pot limit of 20 pots per vessel for the Kodiak District commercial tanner crab fishery. Currently, the pot limit is based on the GHL and is a two-tiered approach.

If the GHL is less than 5 million pounds, the pot limit is 20 pots per vessel. If the GHL is greater than 5 million pounds, the pot limit goes up to 30 pots per vessel. The department expects this to have minimal effect given that since 2000 the pot limit has been over 20 only once. That was in the 2023 season. So not a lot of impacts expected should this be adopted.

And the department is neutral on this proposal. Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you.

I actually like this idea and I like it for a couple of reasons. Number one, I think that in this fishery, now that we've kept the dates at January 15th, I think that the GHL can be harvested with 20 pots, irregardless of what the— irregardless of what the GHL has seen. I think the time frame exists. I think one of the problems that this fishery has experienced a little bit in the past is that with a 30-pot limit, and it also depends on how many people end up participating in the fishery, And it is a limited entry fishery, but there tends to be times when, you know, it was just a few years ago, for example, in Kodiak where the GHL was very high and there is— there are some processing concerns. And I think that this pot limit will allow the GHL to be harvested in the time allotted, and it will also alleviate some of the concerns when the GHL is high.

That we don't have any processing concerns and holdups to the fleet. And so I think this is actually productive. Does the department have any authority to limit pots anyways? I mean, I'm assuming that—. Yeah.

Madam Chair, no, we don't. You don't. Okay. So whatever's in reg is whatever they use. Yes, ma'am.

And. Okay, got it. Mr. Wood. Yeah. Thank you.

For that reason, I just think it adds to more predictability for the fleet. Having that many pots, it'll help slow the fishery down. And even the, the larger and smaller vessels supported this idea as it was written in the AC. So for that reason, I'm also supportive of this proposal. Mr. Zarey, thank you, Madam Chair.

Kodiak AC was in favor, none opposed.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal The proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. There is an omission. Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 289. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Ziray? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. That motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 282. Madam Chair, proposal 282, 5AAC 35.525, lawful gear for registration area J. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would amend the escape mechanism requirements for Kodiak District commercial Tanner crab gear. As specified in this proposal, rectangular and pyramid pots would be required to have at least 1/3 of a vertical surface of the pot composed of not less than 6.75-inch stretch mesh webbing. Cone pots would be required to have at least 1/3 of the vertical surface of the pot composed of not less than 6.75-inch stretch mesh webbing, or have at least 8 5 circular escape rings installed on a vertical surface. The department supports stakeholder-led efforts to decrease handling mortality through improvements of escape mechanisms. While the department has no specific data regarding the effectiveness of 6.75-inch mesh compared to 5-inch rings, it's generally accepted that the mesh panels offer more opportunity for non-target crab to escape the pots, given that mesh panels cover a higher proportion of the pot's overall surface area.

Madam Chair, excuse me. Yes. Thank you. Board discussion?

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I really like this proposal because it seems to take into mind conservation to a large degree. It will reduce handling of the, of the crab because they can escape.

More easily, and for that reason I'm supportive of it. Does the department have any kind of estimate, or can you give me a little bit of information about what you think it would cost to reconfigure Potgiar under this? I know that— I mean, I just kind of want to get a little bit of the discussion on that on the record because I want to acknowledge that there is going to be a cost for people, and there's a lot of variability in how well people can maybe weather some of that cost given some of the current conditions. Certainly, Madam Chair. I, I don't want to put a specific number on it just because I'm not a pot builder and don't operate gear myself.

But this discussion did come up during the Kodiak AC, and from my understanding, given that the pot limit is so low, they're only talking about 20 pots now. So not a lot of pots to reconfigure. There was a dollar value put on square foot of mesh. It was not a lot. It seemed like the conversation I recall from the Kodiak AC didn't seem like that was a pretty prohibitively large amount of money just to buy some mesh, and rings are a few dollars each.

Currently you need 4 in a pot, doubling that to 8, I would guess that's less than $40 a pot, something like that. There would be costs associated with it, but I can't put a number on it for you. Okay, I just, I want to, I just want to acknowledge that though, because again, you know, some, some folks might be a little bit more difficult for them. And I've seen some public comment related to such. So, I mean, I didn't know if we were talking a grand, a couple grand, $50, you know, total.

I just was kind of trying to get an idea of what the cost would be for these guys to reconfigure. Mr. Zirai, and then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kodiak AC in favor. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. This is where I'm going to lean on the advisory committee a little bit. You know, I think they hashed this out, quite frankly, and I think they're behind the idea. I think there's some conservation that's built into this proposal, and I think that's appropriate, even though, as the Chair suggested, there will be a little bit of a cost.

But I don't think it's anything that's prohibitive to lead the Board to really put a whole lot of weight in that, but I think it's important to mention. So having said that, Initial cost to reconfigure pots for escapement mechanisms. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost— or will result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I would call the question.

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

No, Madam Chair. Captain McGrath? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 282.

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

Yes. Svenson. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes.

Zarey. Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 284. Madam Chair, Proposal 284, 5AAC 35.5XX, new section. Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 284 with substitute language found in RC 46. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, I have— we have before us substitute language in RC 46 in lieu of proposal number 284.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would allow Tanner crab catcher vessels to simultaneously tender Tanner crab from other Tanner crab catcher vessels in the Kodiak, Chignik, and South Peninsula District registration areas. This proposal was originally just for Kodiak. The language found in RC 46 includes the Chignican South Peninsula districts.

Um, let's see, uh, the department is neutral on this proposal, but should the proposal be adopted, the department recommends the board adopts language prohibiting catch-or-tender vessels from tendering their own catch for the purpose of satisfying delivery requirements related to switching in-season section registration. I will note that language to that effect is also found in RC 46, so that concern has been taken care of. This, you know, as I mentioned in my, in my oral presentation, vessels currently are allowed to either tender or catch but not both at the same time in the Tanner fishery. However, in the Dungeness fishery in the Kodiak area, they can do just this. So they're, they're sort of asking for the same thing that is allowed in the Dungeness fishery to happen in the Tanner fishery.

Smaller vessels may benefit from additional landing opportunities. There is a thread here that is related to market availability and letting smaller vessels combine their catch to allow them to access markets. I think that may be some of the intention behind RC46 adding additional districts to this plan.

And the Department does not have— While we do have, you know, thoughts about how, you know, extra tender vessels mean some extra work on the department's behalf as far as, you know, chasing down a lot of fish tickets from a lot of different tender operators, we don't feel like that burden is enough for us to oppose or have opinions on it in that way. So we are neutral on this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. I noted that wildlife troopers had some concerns about the proposal as initially written. Do you maintain those concerns, Director— I mean, Captain?

Madam Chair, with the language tweak in the RC, we no longer have a concern. Thanks. And then the other thing that I just kind of wanted to pull out of the record a little bit, I know that this is certainly supported by a lot of the Kodiak fleet. I heard public testimony from South Penn that they were in favor of the inclusion. I do have some testimony in RC57 from a Chignik area fisherman who had concerns about this.

Can you talk to me for the Tanner crab fishery? Is that a super exclusive fishery in the Chignik area?

Madam Chair, that's correct. In Chignik area, it's super exclusive. So the super exclusive designation functionally with this, with this regulation change, would that impact— I mean, how does that work? Just so I can pull it out on the record, please. What does that mean, that super exclusive designation?

So super exclusive, Madam Chair, super exclusive designation is, is related to registration of a catcher vessel, and it's functionally a tool to force catcher vessels to choose one fishery per year because these are open access fisheries. The Kodiak One is not, but South Peninsula are open access. And it's a tool to say you may choose to fish in any open access fishery, but only one per year. So if you choose a super exclusive registration area and you register your vessel, that vessel isn't doing anything else in the same calendar year. And I don't believe it has really any interplay with this tendering idea, Madam Chair.

But if somebody, um, you know, registered in the super exclusive area and wanted to tender Under this reg change, they could do that, correct? For that specific area? Madam Chair, yes. There are no exclusivity regulations required regarding tender registration. Thank you for that.

Any other discussion? Mr. Zirai. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kodiak AC was— with the inclusion of RC-486 was in favor of this. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, and I could speak to a few reasons for this that I thought were really good. One was it helped with the safety issues, especially for smaller boats and how much they were carrying. The financial advantages as well of kind of combining the, their harvest onto the tender, and also the ability to take the time to go look for the processor as well. So for all those reasons, I thought this was a good idea, so I'm supportive of it.

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

Errors and omissions? Director Bauer? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 284 as amended. Chamberlain?

Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zarey? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 285. Madam Chair, proposal 285, 5AAC35.507, Kodiak, Chignik, and South Peninsula District Sea Bear Dye Tanner Crab Harbor Strategies. Moved to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal is seeking to repeal and replace the South Peninsula District Tanner Crab Harbor Strategy with management components derived from the Registration Area A Southeast Tanner Crab Harbor Strategy. Current South Peninsula district pot limit and vessel length limits would be retained.

As I mentioned in my oral, they're— the current harvest strategy for the South Peninsula is based on our trawl survey results, and GHLs are computed annually through our abundance-based harvest strategy. Implementing the Southeast strategy in South Peninsula, it is difficult for the Department to fully explain what the effects of that would be, given that a number of the components of the Southeast Strategy do not readily translate to South Peninsula, and alternatives were not provided in the proposal. And for that reason, the Department opposes this proposal.

—Does it lack sufficient detail for the department to adequately describe or consider the potential effects. Although should the board consider repealing and replacing the existing South Peninsula District Harvest Strategy, the department recommends tabling this effort to allow for adequate stakeholder engagement and analysis. The Southeast Alaska approach provides fewer conservation benefits relative to the current South Peninsula Harvest Strategy with GHL set annually based on Tanner crab abundance. Madam Chair. Mr.

Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, one of the things I'd like to note for the record is an RC 36, which was a letter, an RC that was sent in. I believe the people that wrote this particular proposal happen to be out fishing right now, so they obviously couldn't be here. I think they— the RC kind of suggests that they understand that the proposal, the way it's written, there needs to be some some work done with the department over the next 3 years to potentially develop something.

Um, and that really, considering the department's concerns specific to the proposal, I think it's a little bit concerning at this time. So for those reasons, I encourage the people that participate in this fishery to work with the department and possibly come back to the board in the future, but I can't support it at this time. Thank you. I echo Member Carpenter's comments. Mr. Wood?

Yeah, thanks. I as well. I mean, to repeal and replace, it takes a fair bit of effort. I know none of them— none of them— there was 1, 2, 3, 5 proposers attached to this. None of them were here to help be a part of that.

I'd also note that the King Cove AC did support this, and they mentioned that allowing the opportunity of fish stocks outside of the core area in the district that it could allow for opportunity, especially of underutilized because of lack of surveys. So down the road, this may have a lot of credibility, but right now it doesn't have a full vision. So I'll be a no. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think, you know, depending on which way this goes, I think it's important to consider the subsistence regulation review. For this area. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? No.

Is this stock customary and traditionally used for subsistence? Yes. The board has made a positive, positive C&T finding for Tanner crab in the Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Island area found in 5 AAC 02.556(a). Can a portion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes.

The amounts necessary that the board has found is for 4,200 to 16,200 Tanner crab are reasonably necessary for subsistence in this area, which includes 1500 to 8,000 Tanner crab within the waters west of longitude of Scotch Cape Light and east of 168 west. Do these regulations provide opportunity for subsistence? Yes, I believe that they, they do. And is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other opportunity? I don't think so at this time.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question has been called. Errors and omissions. Director Nelson?

No, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Director Bauer. My goodness. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Have you joined the party? Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Now Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 285. Carpenter? No.

Ziray? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood?

No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain? No.

That motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 286. Madam Chair, proposal 286, 5AAC 35.507, Kodiak, Chignik, and South Peninsula District Sea Bear Dye Tanner Crab Harvest Strategies. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this is similar to the last proposal in that it's seeking to repeal the South Peninsula District Tanner Crab Harvest Strategy and replace it with a size-sex-season management regime. In this case, That would mean a season from January 15 to March 31 with only 5.5-inch male crab being able to be retained, and those would be the only constraints on harvest of the fishery. It's important to note that this is an open-access Tanner crab fishery, meaning that there is no limit on the number of vessels that could participate. So what's being discussed here is functionally a fishery that's open for 76 days with no harvest limit and no limit on the amount of vessels that could participate.

For that reason, the department is opposing this proposal because it violates the department's constitutional and statutory obligations to manage fisheries for sustained yield and would result in overfishing. The department would not open the South Peninsula District Tanner crab fishery under a 3S management regime, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. And for discussion, Mr. Wood. I really totally support with the department's opinion on this, especially when there's no GHL or at all.

So I just— I think I'll, well, without a doubt be a no on this. Any other board discussion? I concur. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will reference my subsistence review from the prior proposal. I also agree that this is concerning and specific to 3S management in this particular area. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the Department, and I would call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Ueda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 286.

Svenson? No. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

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

Zareh? Nope. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 287. Madam Chair, Ethan Nichols, area manager for Bering Sea Ocean Islands.

Proposal 287, 5AAC 35.508, Bering Sea Sea Bear Dye Tanner Crab Harvest Strategy. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would adjust the annual Bering Sea District tanner crab TAC calculation and the regulatory harvest strategy.

The intent of the proposal is to align the harvest strategy with a reduction in industry preferred tanner crab size. Carapace, uh, Tanner crab size to a size determined by the department based on landed sizes from the previous open season's retained catch. In general, a lower industry preferred size would provide for higher tax, specifically in the western area, than otherwise would be competed using the current definition of 5 inches. The degree to which tax would increase varies and primarily depends on the size and shell condition composition of male Tanner crab. And the estimated total and retained catch fishery selectivity of male Tanner crab by size and shell condition.

This change could reduce discarding of legal-sized Tanner crab during the fishery, as smaller-sized crab would be retained in the fishery at a higher rate compared to the current harvest practices. Retaining a wider range of size— sizes of mature males could improve fishery CPE and reduce discard mortality. A lower size may negatively impact the market preference and fishery value, given the longstanding tradition of targeting targeting and marketing industry preferred size Tanner crab at 5 inches. And pot gear escape mechanisms in the form of stretched mesh or circular rings are scaled to match retention standards. So if a new industry preferred size were adopted, it would need to change across seasons.

Sorry, if a new industry preferred size were to change across seasons based on size composition data from the previous year's landed catch as proposed, Escape mesh and rings on Tanner crab pots would also be required to change accordingly.

The department opposes this proposal as written. Annually computing the industry preferred size based on the landed crab size from the previous season's catch would add uncertainty and unpredictability to the tax setting process. Further exploration into appropriate Tanner crab fishery retention size is warranted, particularly for the western area. But any resulting regulatory change should be well-defined and synchronized across all stakeholders. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. Um, maybe to the department, can you give us an estimate on approximately how much a reduction to 4.4 would change the TAC potentially based on current abundance levels?

Mr. Carpenter to the Chair. So it depends.

On average, so again, you know, the original proposal didn't define a target for us. 4.5 Has emerged in the last couple weeks as an attempt to provide a target for us. So we haven't had a lot of time to engage on this, but on average, so looking at the rationalized time period. So for the last 20 years on average, or last 20 years on average, about, about a 10 to 15% increase overall. But really where this intersects sort of crab management is some years the proportion of, of large animals compared to small animals is quite, quite low.

And so this year, a change, or for the 2024-2025 season, A change from 5 inches to 4.5-inch preferred size would have functionally doubled— or excuse me, added 50% to the size of the tax.

And so, you know, every 3 out of every 10 years, we could see, you know, 30 to 50% increase during those years. And some years it doesn't matter because the ratio of big to small animals are roughly proportional. So answer is variable, but during some years, quite a bit, you know, with 1 million pounds this year. Well, I appreciate you stating that because I think that that's something important for the board to consider. I mean, I know the department's opposed to this.

I think there's other factors that come into play. As well here. I think that there's certain things that need to be in alignment, specifically when you're prosecuting a fishery as big as this one. And, you know, deviating from this 4.5, I don't really think that all the necessary components of it align, quite frankly, to execute this. I'm very concerned that this reduced size, you know, with the varying fluctuation and the potential varying fluctuation in the TAC, what the impacts that could have on this fishery.

And so for those reasons, and kind of the idea that the processing capacity, quite frankly, or the processors that are involved very heavily in executing this, really haven't been in alignment necessarily. And I think that also causes problems. So for those reasons, I'm not going to be supportive of this. I just want to make sure that we had your name on the record, Mark. Sorry, Madam Chair, Mark Stickert.

Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. Um, this one, I guess you got to just come at from a lot of different angles. The, um, it biologically, the crab are there and able to be harvested.

It wouldn't be an impact biologically, but it would be an impact with all the handling because of the mortality. Around throwing back smaller crab. It does sound like that ocean conditions are just turning this crab size into smaller and smaller as time goes on, which maybe ultimately the processors will, the marketers will have to adjust to. But right now, if that's what they want and they're gonna throw everything else back, it doesn't make any sense. To try to make it easier to, you know, to catch less smaller crab.

So this might be something that can come back in 3 years, look at the market and look at the crab, the biologic, and see if all of these rings align to make this all work. The processors, the fishing, and the biology. So I think for now I'm definitely a no on this and look forward to see how this pans out in the next few years. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Quick question for the department.

There's been testimony about terminal molt, but reducing the size down, down to the amount requested in this proposal, how would that affect the reproductive, reproductive activity of the crab in this? If we're harvesting it, harvesting at a smaller level, are we deprived? How many breeding cycles would we be potentially depriving them of, and how would that affect the, the reproductive possible potential of this stock? Through the chair, Mr. Chamberlain, thank you for that question.

Industry preferred size has been a part of this fishery and the snow crab fishery for going on 3 decades. So this isn't something new. It used to be 5.5 inches. That changed to 5 inches about 10, 12 years ago. And because this is, you know, functionally a part of this fishery, the department through the board has developed harvest strategies to sort of accommodate industry's preference to harvest the largest animals because they have higher economic yield.

And we have sort of modified and adapted and adapted harvest strategies to ensure that we aren't knowingly causing any conservation concerns. And just to kind of clarify the Department's position, a change from 5 to 4.5 inches based on our understanding of impacts is not likely going to result in any sort of measurable or identifiable conservation concerns. I think Mr. Carpenter captured it well and we said that in our staff comments. Is really the alignment. If we're going to behaviorally be choosing to harvest 4.5-inch animals, we want to make sure that the gear is selecting for 4.5-inch animals.

We want the boats to be putting 4.5-inch animals into the tanks, and we want the processors readily buying 4.5-inch animals. A break in that continuity could result in a lot of discarding or sorting or high grading, and at that point we're no longer having a harvest strategy that is sort scaled to harvesting 4.5-inch animals if people are selectively choosing not to harvest those animals. So that is the core of the department's concern. I don't think there's a conservation concern. There's no identifiable or measurable concerns relative to overexploitation on any component of the stock.

We don't think the added harvest overall will result in We don't think it's gonna be compromising the stock. And so it's, it's provided everyone is behaving at 4.5-inch. So this is more of a social engineering exercise than it is conservation, because through past actions by the board department, this is a good harvest strategy. And I think the harvest strategy is able to scale up and down based on preference. It would really be helpful for the department to hear when we set preseason expectations on tack that everyone is going to be harvesting 4.5-inch animals.

And at this point, we're hearing some disconnectivity between processors and catchers. If those come into alignment, I think the department would be happy to help advance this action. Thank you. I'm not sure we answered the question, but I'm okay with that. I also have those concerns.

I will be voting no. My concern was if we're going down, are we, are we reducing the reproductive capacity of this stock? Just from a pure biological numbers, if you have more opportunities to breed, there are more crabs in the ocean. So, but based on, on the prior comments, I, I'll also be voting no on this one. Thank you.

Thanks. So this one kind of caught my attention for a while. And, you know, With respect to the discard and the handling, I mean, there's discard and handling that's occurring now. I understand that this would have the potential to increase unless there was, you know, if those escape mechanism measurements or parameters were changed, if the market continued to select for 5. It's not quite ripe yet, and at least based on what I've heard, but that's primarily because I've also read conflicting positions out of the processing sector.

And that is, I think, what has sort of obfuscated or confused this particular proposal moving forward. At this time, you know, I understand that they have a preferred size. I also heard in the course of meeting with stakeholders and reading public comments that there may be alternative market opportunity for something a little bit below 5 that people might be interested, or that the processing sector has actually requested. Sub-5 to some extent. So, but that isn't necessarily what we've heard out of the, out of the, the buyers at this meeting.

But I, I tend to sort of be confused and concerned a little bit, and I'm going to say I'm confused a little bit about why we're developing harvest strategies and management strategies based on market.

That fundamentally sort of catches my attention and I have feelings about that. But it is what it is, particularly with crab and my— and what I've been exposed to. So if there's opportunity, I hear all the time, foregone harvest, foregone harvest is the worst thing in the world. Here we have some opportunity for some foregone harvest because you've got legal mature biomass that is not being accessed or not being utilized for whatever reason. And in terms of making sure that, that we are harvesting or have the potential to harvest across these various size strata and whatnot and maintaining some of that allele variability, which I tend to think is good.

You know, that selectivity for harvest can create issues down the road. And I know that the department does a really good job in attempting to manage for that. But if there are positive biological impacts potentially for expanding outside of that 5, I think that that's compelling. So anyways, I'm not going to support it at this time based on just, again, speaking to that alignment. But this one has caught my attention for a variety of reasons.

I won't be supporting it at this time, but I think I have kind of made some of my thoughts clear, and I will open it up to other board members.

Nothing? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal would result in some additional direct costs for a private person to participate.

The fishery and Tanner crab pot gear would need to be refitted with new escape mesh and rings to match and change in crab retention sizes. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost to the department. And I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions, Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 287. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Zareh? No. Carpenter? No.

Svensson? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal 288. Madam Chair, Proposal 288, 5AAC 35.517, bearing C, Sea Opilio Tanner Crab Harvest Strategy. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would adjust, adjust the annual Bering Sea District commercial snow crab total allowable catch calculation and the regulatory harvest strategy. The intent of the proposal is to align the commercial harvest strategy with a reduction in industry preferred snow crab size to a size determined by the department based on landed sizes from the previous open season's retained catch. The current industry preferred size for snow crab is 4 3.74 inches carapace width. It is unspecified in the proposal what measure or methodology the department should use to compute the new industry preferred size from the previous season's retained catch, although the proposal identifies that measure— that measure should result in an industry preferred size that is at least 3.74 inches carapace width. In general, a lower industry preferred size would provide for higher tax than would otherwise be computed using the current definition of 4 inches.

The degree to which tax would increase primarily depends on the size and shell condition composition of male snow crab and the estimated total and retained catch fishery selectivity of male snow crab by size and shell condition. This change could reduce discard mortality of legal size crab during the fishery, as smaller size crab, 3.74 inches compared to 4.0 inches, would likely be retained in the fishery at a higher rate compared to current harvest practices. However, this proposal would result in a higher overall exploitation rate on mature male abundance that could increase to a level that harms reproductive potential of the stock. I'll note that this would add management uncertainty, particularly for snow crab. We have high uncertainty in the stock status and management due to the recent snow crab population collapse.

There was no new preferred industry preferred size specified in the proposal, so there's annually calculating the preferred size is challenging, and the department recommends that any change to preferred size for snow crab occur concurrent to a comprehensive harvest strategy review. Given the current low stock status, the department opposes this proposal until further analysis are completed to fully understand the effects. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I mean, I think this has some similarities to the prior proposal, but I think this is even more difficult for me to get my head around. I agree with the department's assessment on that. I think there's way too many underlying conditions and amount of information. I just keep thinking back over the last few years about the snow crab population specifically that is, in my opinion, in— rebuilding period right now. And so I think that changing these numbers at this time would have potentially dramatic impacts.

The similarities from the prior proposal is that I just think that there's too many things that are out of alignment to, to move this forward at this time. So I'll be a no. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I, I am feel very similarly to Member Carpenter, and especially with snow crab at this time in history, I think it's an really important to be cautious.

Once again, it was brought up by the processing industry that, you know, it's the labor costs for smaller animals are— is higher. And, and then it was also noted in staff comments, just the world markets, global markets. I mean, eventually maybe we'll all align as well globally to make it worthwhile, but There's a lot of other crab out there. And as long as our snow crab need some attention and caution, I'll be a no on this for now.

Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Questions on called errors and omissions, Director Bauer?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 288. Carlson-Vandork. No. Carpenter?

No. Wood? No. Svenson? No.

Chamberlain? No. Zarey? Nope. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 291. Madam Chair, Proposal 291, 5AAC 35.5, 5535, closed waters and registration area J. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Staff comments, please. This proposal would formalize the closure of Bristol Bay waters east of 163 west longitude to directed Tanner crab fishing.

In practice, there will be no change or effect on the directed eastern Tanner crab fishery, given that 163 west longitude has been historically recognized across all stakeholders Eastern Bering Sea tanner crab fishery participants will not be impacted by formalizing this closure. I'll note that there was this— this boundary was specified in regulation in past years, but due to an error, it was inadvertently removed from the reg book.

The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter. So effectively, you're just— this is a housekeeping issue for the most part.

Through the chair, that's correct. Thank you. Is this, um, related to commercial crab fishing, period? Are there subsistence or other, other harvesting going on in that area? Madam Chair, this is just specific to the commercial fishery.

There is sport and subsistence activity taking place in this area, but it does not impact that— impact those fisheries. Thank you. Any other board discussion?

I will be supportive based on that. I just, just wanted to make sure that we weren't inadvertently restricting other smaller harvest uses. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. I think for the record, it's important to note a couple of things.

Closing the waters east of 163 West helps protect the nearshore critical habitat for female and juvenile red king crab consistent with Section 8.2.9 of the FMP, enclosing the waters of Eastern— Eastern waters of Bristol Bay to the Bering Sea Tanner Fishery, does not conflict with MSA national standards and may help minimize bycatch of female juvenile red king crab bycatch consistent with National Standard Number 9. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. There's nothing further. I'd call the question. Question's been called.

There is an omission. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 291. Zareh?

Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Svensson? Yes.

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

Yes. That motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 283. Madam Chair, Proposal 283, 5AAC 35.525, lawful gear for Registration Area J. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments. This proposal would allow commercial snow and Tanner crab pot gear to be longlined in the Bering Sea District. Currently, pot gear in the Bering Sea District in these fisheries must be fished single pots. This would allow vessels participating in the rationalized Bering Sea District snow and Tanner crab fisheries to operate either single or longline pots.

So they would have a choice between the two. Longlining pots in these crab fisheries may increase gear conflicts and gear loss. Given that pots have not historically been longlined in these fisheries, the overall effects of the fisheries are generally unknown. But the proposers suggest that longlining pots would create efficiencies in fishing operations potentially increase vessel safety and increase pot soak times, which would allow crab to better self-sort on the bottom, reducing on-deck sorting time and bycatch of sublegal and female crab. The department is neutral on this proposal.

Madam Chair, thank you for discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I'll note in RC 13, the proposer mentioned in it when he wrote it out in G, the conditions of a permit issued by the commissioner I mean, we already know how longlining pots works, so I'm not sure why we'd need a committee.

Commissioner's permit for that, if that's even— if that would be necessary. I'd also like to note that the Unalaska Dutch Harbor AC did support this, and it mentioned that the fleet should be able to harvest in the most efficient manner possible, and this wouldn't preclude other harvesters with single-pot gear, but it does seem like we'd be introducing gear conflicts if this was allowed to happen.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I tend to agree with Mr. Wood on this one. I'm not sure that, you know, as RC-13 suggests, possibly going to a commissioner's permit. I mean, I think it's pretty clear that you can look at the golden king crab fishery, for example, and this is a longline pot fishery, but under very different circumstances. It's almost a function of the way that fishery has to exist. There's been a very long tradition in the Tanner and snow crab fisheries that these are single pot fisheries.

And I think I'm leaning not in favor of this at this time because now I understand that most of these people that are involved in this fishery are out doing something right now in their vessels, but It's concerning to me because this is such a deviation from the way this fishery has been executed for many, many years that without some people in the audience that are involved in this fishery telling me that this is a good idea, um, I just don't know that I can do it at this time. I think that this will definitely increase efficiency of the fleet. There's far less participants fishing right now than there used to be. So I think potential gear conflicts won't necessarily exist like they would have many years ago, just based on the amount of vessels that are participating. But I really wished I could have heard from more people in the fleet that would speak to this.

And so for that reason, I'm going to oppose it at this time. Mr. Swenson and Mr. Chamberlain.

I don't think I could— I'm leaning to not supporting this also, basically. Staff talking about a chance of greater loss for plots, and I think that that's a real conservation concern. Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain. So I'm, I'm slightly leaning in favor of this.

I am for increased soak times, more separation between the, between the crab, or self-sorting of the crab, and that leads to less mortality, discard mortality. With regard to gear conflicts, I think there may be some, but notwithstanding the— some of the proposals we've had before us, industry tends to sort that out on its own.

But I am slightly leaning yes towards this because out there. Costs are high and it's important to be efficient in this fishery. So I'm leaning a slight yes on this, but it's not a hard one by any stretch.

Thanks. I, you know, I kind of agree with Member Carpenter and I also agree with Member Chamberlain. I think I'll probably leaning towards not supporting, but, you know, it's just a different way of prosecuting the fishery. It's not one that is new, at least in terms of how the gear is utilized. I would also just kind of note that it's unusual for the board to— I don't even know if we have the authority to tell the commissioner how and why he should use one of his permit authorities unless the commissioner specifically requests guidance or intent from the board on how to issue a commissioner's permit.

With the language that was in RC referenced in RC 13. I don't even think the Board has the authority to do that. I don't know if Director Bauer, you have comments on that? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER BOWER] Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, just a few comments on Commissioner's permit authority.

And, you know, I really appreciated Mr. Wood's comments earlier. He is correct in that We have a lot of experience with longlining pot gear around the state for crab, for other species. So, you know, the intent of a commissioner's permit is really to examine the potential for an experimental fishery. And, you know, in this case, I think there's little evidence that longlining pot gear for crab would be experimental in this area.

Regarding the authority, certainly, if the board asked us to issue experimental permits, we would seriously consider those. And we've done— there's many examples of us doing that in the past. But the commissioner does have that authority to issue permits at his discretion. And so thank you for that question. Thank you, Mr. Bowers.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Zirai? Yeah, I just, you know, I wish there had been people here that could have spoke to the concerns, but, you know, after hearing everything, I'm going to be voting probably in favor of this. Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter?

Approval of this proposal may result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fish should participants choose the longline gear. Initial costs could include upgrading vessel equipment to allow for operation of longline pots, purchasing longline gear and pots. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. And I would call the question. I heard the question.

I have one more question. So with respect to this issue of gear conflicts, let's just— I want to pull the thread a little bit. What specific conflicts would you know, do you think would be anticipated if this change were to occur? Madam Chair, I think the concern is that, you know, we don't fully understand what the potential gear conflicts could be because vessels are not currently longlining pots in the areas that they're fishing snow and Tanner crab. There may be some gear interaction amongst the fleet, say if one snow crab vessel is fishing single pots and another right next to it is fishing longline pots.

You might set over a longline string of gear or vice versa. Another part of it is that in that area, in addition to vessels targeting crab throughout the year, there's hook and line boats fishing Pacific cod. There's trawler activity. So, you know, as noted in the gear storage proposal earlier for golden king crab, These, these long lines of crab pot gear have the potential to be quite long, and you might not be able to visually see both buoys on either end. So if you're a trawl vessel working in the area, it may make it challenging to identify where pot gear is actually placed.

One final thing I'll note, just for the record, the proposer suggests that, you know, the longlining of these pots would increase soak time. There's nothing specific to longlining crab pot gear that increases soak time. I think the idea is that with these stacking-style cone pots, this operator in particular would be able to operate more pots, a higher number of pots, and so would be less inclined to turn those pots as frequently, resulting in a longer soak time, which would potentially have the benefit of self-sorting on the bottom. Madam Chair, that's very helpful. And then my last question is, are there other fisheries, crab fisheries in the state, where you allow single and longline pot gear in the same fishery at the same time?

Yes. One example that comes to mind, Madam Chair, right in the same area there would be the Pribilof Islands golden king crab fishery. Vessels can operate either single or longline king crab pot gear. And do you have evidence, or anecdotally or otherwise, of, of similar gear conflicts in that fishery?

Madam Chair, that fishery has low participation, so I don't have direct evidence of gear interaction amongst the crab fleet operating, but have had some notes of gear interaction from trawlers and vessels using longline pot gear in that fishery. Okay, thank you. Question's been called, errors and omissions. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Miss Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll.

Final action on Proposal 283. Chamberlain? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? No.

Zareh? Yes. Svenson? No. Carpenter?

No. Wood? No. Motion fails, 2 in favor, 4 against, Madam Chair. Proposal number 292.

Madam Chair, proposal 292, 5A(C35.556), lending requirements for registration area J. Moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal is seeking to amend Area J Tanner crab landing requirements by removing delivery timelines while still specifying that vessels with Tanner crab on board may not be used for any purpose except traveling to port to make a delivery. Currently, vessels must deliver crab within 24 or 72 hours of a fishery closing depending on which district or subdistrict we're talking about. Under this proposal, vessels would still need to go directly to port, but the they would not have a strict timeline. This could give vessel operators more flexibility to travel to port when conditions are favorable, whether that's good weather, daylight hours, something like that. Vessel operators would also be relieved of the responsibility for missed delivery timeline requirements due to circumstances beyond their control.

And mostly what we're looking at there would be backlogs at the processors. If the processor is asking you to wait 5 days to offload, clearly you're not going to be able to offload in 24 or 72 hours. The prohibition on operating gear after the closure with crab on board would remain, meaning if the fishery is closed, a vessel with crab on board can't stack out their gear, place it in storage, bring it back to town, something like that. So that would remain. This is a department-submitted proposal.

Improvements in that sea communications have, have largely made these strict delivery timeline requirements unnecessary. We believe these are from a time when it was more difficult for us to keep track of vessels on the grounds, and mandating that vessels needed to be in port delivering within 24 hours was sort of a way to make sure that they weren't still fishing. The department submitted this proposal proposal and supports it, Madam Chair. Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thanks. I think, I think this totally, uh, is— makes sense. Common sense, actually. I really like how the department is working with the, you know, modern communication and the fishermen to figure out that, that having this, uh, be so strict is not necessary. And, uh, it, it makes sure that it's safer as well for the vessels so that so that, you know, they're not trying to struggle to get to the delivery on time, you know, therefore encouraging them to make decisions that otherwise they wouldn't have to.

So I think this is really smart. [Speaker:KATIE] Any other board discussion? I will note that I saw no opposition in the on-time public comments, nor was there any opposition expressed in public testimony that I have notes on or in Committee of the Whole. Any other board discussion? Mr. Zarey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kodiak AC was in favor of this. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I would just like to say that I appreciate the department bringing proposals forward like this. I think that this is a good way to work with the fleet. I think that modern communications have solved a lot of the problems, and I agree with the idea that this is no longer a relevant regulation. So approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs to the department. I call the question.

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

No, Madam Chair. Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 292. Carpenter? Yes.

Mr. Ray? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion carries, 6 in favor, 2 against. Madam Chair? Proposal 294.

Madam Chair, Proposal 294, 5AAC 32.4XX, new section. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, we're moving on to Dungeness crab proposals now.

This proposal would establish a 58-foot vessel length limit for the Alaska Peninsula District commercial Dungeness crab fishery. Currently, there is If there is no vessel length limit, adopting this may mean that vessels greater than 58 feet would no longer— it would mean that vessels greater than 58 feet would no longer be able to participate, and this may mean that those vessels would move into a different fishery where they are still allowed to operate, and that may increase competition in those fisheries. Vessels less than 58 feet may benefit from the exclusion of these larger vessels through increased catch due to reduced competition and gear congestion. And we will note that since 2002, there have been 8 vessels in this fishery greater than 58 feet, with no more than 2 of those vessels participating in any one given season. The department is neutral on this proposal, Madam Chair.

Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I— if I recall, I mean, this pot limit has just been in place a few years.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we did that. We put this in place just a few years ago, didn't we? Through the Chair, Member Carpenter, this proposal is seeking a 58-foot vessel length limit. Right, but specific to the pot limit, it's only been in place for just a couple years, correct? Correct, that was last cycle.

And I think that part of the reason that the pot limit came into place was, you know, it asked the board to address the pot limit because there was some competition that had, you know, large vessels that were participating in this fishery that were kind of, you know, and so I think the board addressed it with pot limits. I mean, there are people that participate in this fishery that probably have vessels just over 58-foot, you know, maybe in the 70-80-foot range that would no longer be able to participate. That I'm not sure, quite frankly, if the 8 people that have been participating, if how many of those vessels fall into that category. And so I guess I'm asking you if you know, because I'm sure you're familiar with these vessels, how many people that that might affect.

Member Carpenter, through the chair, I can say that there have been 8 vessels that fit that size, a vessel that would be excluded.

Does that answer the— did I miss the question? Yeah, I was just kind of looking at the 8 people that have been participating regularly, how many vessels are over 58 feet, if you know. I understand the question now. Through the chair, the number of vessels on average in this fishery is— in the last couple of years has been in the teens and 20s every year. The vessel count of 8 is during the history of this fishery.

There have been 8 vessels over 58 feet with no more than 2 vessels over 58 feet in any given year. Okay, that's clear to me now. I really don't see a reason for this at this time. I think the pot limit regulation that we passed just a couple years ago, quite frankly, is enough in this particular fishery with low participation rates to, to handle the situation that currently occurs. And so unless I hear something otherwise, I probably won't be supporting this.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I agree. I will note that the King Cove AC did support this, but the Dutch Harbor on Alaska one said that they were opposed because they noted that limiting size could preclude vessels already fishing there. But I think you just answered the question that 8 vessels historically have been over 58. So it— but I guess it might preclude.

So I don't know. I'm not sure that we need to take action on this right now. I'll see what other members have to say. Mr. Swenson.

Well, do you think by eliminating— I mean, is there— I guess there's, as Mr. Carpenter alluded to, I guess there's not a lot of, a lot of boats out in that doing this, or they're not going to conflict. I guess my thought was if, if the less, lesser footage allowed some of the smaller boats to be able to get in there and not in where the bigger boats can go out, obviously because of weather and so on, can go out further. Is that any kind of a problem with that, or is that an issue?

Through the chair, I will say that this fishery occurs generally in the summer, so this is May through October, so we're dealing with summer weather, and Dungeness fishing typically occurs more near shore than certainly Tanner crab or king crab fishing. So I'm not sure if that helps to answer your question about, you know, competition between vessels of different sizes operating in different weather conditions. I'll leave that there. That answers the question. Do you have a number of—.

Oh, go ahead. Maybe, maybe I'll add to that. This is a 3S fishery, so there's no GHL or set quota where boats are competing against each other for for a fixed number of crab. So, you know, once the season opens, they retain legal male-sized crab until the season closes. And so I don't know that there's a lot of competitive advantage necessarily in terms of a race for fish on base— on vessel size.

Certainly bigger boats can hoard and hold more crab and they can operate in, you know, probably more variable weather, but they're not specifically competing with each other relative to a GHL. Director Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd just like to refer the board to Table 294-1 on page 87 of RC2. So this, this fishery has changed a little bit in the last 5 or 6 years.

You know, prior to, you know, 2020 season, you know, there were under 10 vessels participating in there were consistently either 0 or 1 vessel per year that was over 58 feet in length in the fleet.

Fishery. Since 2020, as Mr. Nichols mentioned, effort has increased. So, you know, we're up in the high teens to low 20s in terms of number of vessels each year. But that increase has occurred in the under-58-foot sector. There remains, you know, 0 to 1 larger vessel participating, except for 2021 when there were 2.

That's the only year there were 2 vessels over 58 feet. So in every year since 2002, there's either been 0 or 1 vessel per year over 58 feet, except for 2021 when there were 2. Thank you, Mr. Bauer. That helps me a lot.

So, I mean, I guess from my perspective, this is clearly a local— a request to localize the fishery. That's just kind of how I see it. Those communities tend to have those under 58. There's a lot of, you know, salmon boat probably that's being utilized to catch these crab. So on the one hand, yeah, you have low participation in over 58 size vessels, but at the same time, what would be the impact, you know, to 1 or 2 vessels if they're just excluded from this particular area and can go other places?

So I'm kind of on the fence on this one, frankly. I could go either way, but in the event that I, you know, tend to support it. I'll just touch on a couple issues of the allocation criteria since it is— could be allocated, I suppose, although we're talking very low numbers in over 58 vessels. I'm not quite sure, you know, what their capacities are or their efficiencies are, but there are— I will note that there are other alternative fisheries resources available to the over 58 vessels, and they, they have equal importance to the economy of the state, although they probably have a disproportionate advantage to the local economies for those smaller boat fishermen that are participating and delivering locally, if that's the case. And that certainly speaks to the importance of each fishery to, like I said, the local areas where those fisheries are located.

So I'm still kind of on the fence. Clearly there's been use for a long time by under-58 and over-58-foot vessels in these fisheries, and I'll just kind of leave it there for now. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I appreciate that Mr. Bowers pointed out 2294-1 because when— I mean, there is not a lot of people fishing out there.

It does—. There's not a lot of competition. I would say why limit it? It doesn't make sense to me. And also I note that the troopers mentioned that if we did limit it, they noted that how would we measure give them direction on how they would— well, I'll let him speak to it, but we'd have to know how to measure their boat.

Captain? Yeah, we're neutral to the proposal, but if passed, we'd recommend language similar to AS1605.835(a) so that it's clear to the vessel owners and to us how to measure those boats. Thank you. I don't know if there's 58 and 60-foot vessels. I don't know if we're talking 58 versus 80-foot vessels.

I'm not quite sure. Okay, any other board discussion? Mr. Zarey. Yeah, I guess I'd just like to say, uh, I just don't see enough reason to— even though there's very few people, uh, boats over that, that, that size, uh, I don't see enough reason to eliminate them from the fishery, or from not the fishery, but from this area. Thank you.

Yeah, I think it would be helpful to hear what the specific impacts of those vessels are. I mean, like I said, I have no idea the, the size that we're talking about necessarily. That hasn't been presented, at least at this meeting, um, that I've seen. I could have missed something, or what their capacity— if there's one boat coming in and cleaning out an entire area and precluding everybody, uh, that's, uh, kind of local from being able to harvest That, that's something that I wish would have come forward if that were the case. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal does not expect to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions? Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair.

Captain Spratt? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 294. Svenson?

No. Wood? No. Chamberlain? No.

Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Zareh? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 296. Madam Chair, proposal 296, 5AAC 32.440, Registration Area J Inspection Points. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal seeks to amend Registration Area J Dungeness crab vessel inspection requirements by clarifying that vessel inspections are not required in Area J unless the department specifically requires them by emergency order. And I will note that the department expects there to be really no effect if adopted here. Currently, tank checks are required, but we've been waiving them for at least the last decade. But we would— as this proposal is written, tank checks would not be required, but the department would maintain the option to require tank checks by emergency order if needed in the future. The department submitted this proposal and supports it Tank checks.

I guess I'll give a little background here. Tank— this is similar to the last department submitted proposal in that we're looking at older regulations that we feel may not be as necessary due to modern improvements in vessel monitoring and communication. Tank checks were typically used in the past as a way to confirm that a vessel did not have crab on board prior to a season opening. So having crab on board would be an indication of illegal fishing. Fishing, given that the vessel was full of crab prior to the season opening.

Um, with the vessel monitoring services that we have available to us, with the ease of communication from the grounds, the likelihood of a vessel fishing prior to a season opening and then sitting in the harbor with a tank full of crab seems unlikely. And for that reason, the department submitted this proposal. Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Zarey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kodiak AC in favor. More other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks.

I support the department bringing this forward, and I appreciate when they bring proposals like this forward because I think that there's plenty of regulations that don't necessarily need to have impacts that maybe they used to. So for those reasons, I'll be supportive. Mr. Wood? Yep, same as well. As I feel the same, uh, there's, there's better communication nowadays, locating devices, tracking devices.

So I, I, I like the fact that the department is modernizing. Appreciate it. Mr. Carpenter? Approval of this proposal does not expect to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal does not expect to result in additional cost to the department.

I call the question. The question's been called. Errors and omissions, Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings.

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 296.

Wood. Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Zareh.

Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. Yes.

Svenson. Yes. That motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 297. Madam Chair, Proposal 297, 5AAC 32.053, Operation of Other Pot Gear.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this is again a department-submitted proposal looking to update some regulations. This would amend Dungeness crab pot gear operation requirements for Registration Area J to allow a person or vessel who intends to participate in the Dungeness crab fishery to operate commercial Pacific pot gear fishery in Area J in the 14 days prior to the Dungeness season opening.

It would also allow a vessel participating in a Dungeness crab fishery to simultaneously participate in a directed sablefish fishery using pot gear. Because there are two parts to this proposal, I'll break them down and talk about them one at a time if that's helpful. Currently, the regulations for Area J Dungeness say that if a vessel wants to participate in a Dungeness crab fishery, they may not operate any pot gear in the 14 days prior to that fishery opening. However, there is an exemption in the Kodiak, Chignik, and South Peninsula area to allow a Pacific vessel that wants to participate in Dungeness crab to operate Pacific cod pot gear in the 14 days prior to the Dungeness season opening. And that's a recognition from past boards that both of these seasons occur in the spring.

This is This proposal is seeking to extend that exemption to the rest of Area J. So we would just be unifying the Area J regulations to allow for that. That would move this into the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island areas because those are the only areas of Area J that are not currently covered under this exemption. The second part of this is that while a vessel is fishing Dungeness crab.

They may not operate any other pot gear. And I think I mentioned during my oral presentation that we often have Dungeness vessels that do something else in the summer while they're fishing, fishing Dungeness, whether that's salmon or IFQ halibut or sablefish. And the IFQ sablefish fishery has been transitioning from a hook and line gear to a pot gear to address whale depredation. And what the department is foreseeing is that as that sablefish fishery transitions gear types, we may have more vessels that are not able to continue their historic participation in both fisheries because of this prohibition against operating other pot gear in the Dungeness fishery. Typically, when I'm thinking about these type of regulations, my concern is whether there would be a catch accounting issue between the two pot gear types.

If a vessel was participating in both fisheries, would it be unclear where catch was coming from and would catch accounting be difficult. I will mention that even though you can— you could participate in both of these fisheries at the same time, you would not be able to have both products on board at the same time. There are prohibitions in federal groundfish fisheries against having any crab on board, so these would need to be separate trips. But what happens is Dungeness vessels would leave their dungee gear fishing, go do a quick IFQ trip. That would not be allowed in the future if more of these vessels switch to a sablefish pot gear.

We don't have any concerns about the catch counting. As I mentioned, I— it's unlikely that you'll be catching sablefish in a Dungeness pot or Dungeness in the sablefish pot.

Um, the department is, uh submitted and supports this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. For discussion, Mr. Wood. Sure. I think one of the most important things about— is providing access to fisheries in the state, and especially if you can go from one to the other to the other.

And when you're attempting to do that, it just might so happen that you're providing so much opportunity that some of these will overlap. And then you got to make a decision, which is pretty fortunate that you got to choose between one or the other, I guess. So I'm not really that— I like the fact that even though it was brought to our attention that there could be overlap with these fisheries, it sounds like regulations can prevent there from being mixing the two up. But I like the fact that more opportunity is being provided. In lieu of that.

And I'd also notice— well, that's it. I'll just leave it at that for now. Yeah, I agree with Member Wooden. You know, I— these guys are moving to using pots and sablefish. We're seeing that trend all over the state.

You know, hopefully that will help cut down on, you know, the problems that they've been experiencing with whales on the longlines historically. Whales are pretty smart, though. I know they're learning how to get into pots. But this makes good sense to me and allows them to try and use the most efficient gear for both. Any other board discussion?

Mr. Ziray? Kodiak—. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kodiak AC was in favor. Mr. Carpenter?

Yeah, I'm supportive of this for reasons that both Mr. Wood and Madam Chair, suggested on the record, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 297. Wood? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Zareh? Yes. Carpenter? Yes.

Svenson? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal 293. Madam Chair, Proposal 293, 5AAC 32.410, Fishing Seasons for Registration Area J. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This proposal would change the Kodiak District of Area J commercial Dungeness crab fishery opening date from 12 noon May 12 noon June 1st north of the latitude of Boot Point and Cape Ikalik, and from 12 noon June 15th to 12 noon June 1st south of the latitude of Boot Point and Cape Ikalik. Additionally, this proposal would change the Kodiak District Area J commercial Dungeness crab fishery closure date from 11:59 PM October 31st to 12 noon November 30th. Um, let's—. As we heard in public comment, public comment. There— one of the outcomes of this is that— I'll take a step back here.

This would—. This proposal would unify season dates across the entire district instead of this current staggered opening that we have. It would result in a 1-day shorter season in the northern portion of the district and a 45-day longer season in the southern portion of the district. Vessels, again, as we heard in some public testimony, vessels that also fish salmon may lose the opportunity to set Dungeness gear prior to the salmon season in June if we moved the opening date to this June 1 date. And the department did note some concerns relative to gear loss if this season was extended into November.

In the past, we've had the season open as late as December. And had concerns about gear loss as winter weather makes it harder for vessels to get to that gear. We did note that, but we are neutral on this proposal, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. We are going to take a very short 2-minute break.

I would ask members, unless you really got to go, not to leave the table. We'll be right back on the record.

All right, thank you. We're back on the record, time's 11:59. We were in the middle of 293. We just heard staff comments. Are there any board discussion?

Do you remember what staff comments were?

Mr. Wood and then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I was contemplating this because I was consumed by water. But anyhow, but my thought is, is to extend this because of the different boat sizes and extending the season into later seems to accommodate their larger vessels that can handle this. Moving it early, you know, they can— the smaller boats can handle early season fishing and the weather conditions out there.

As opposed to the bigger boat. So I think a lot of consideration should be given just to the safety factors of that in changing these dates. I'll just say that for now as for starters, but I got a few other comments. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, maybe a question for the department.

We heard a little bit in public testimony. We heard varying degrees of this, but specific to the idea that soft crab, hard-shelled crab, timing of the year. Could you maybe touch on that a little bit?

Certainly, Member Carpenter, through the chair.

The, the southern end of the island opens— currently opens later. So the northern end of the island opens May 15th, the southern end of the island opens June 15th. Most harvest on the island does come from the southern section. That is, the majority of the harvest comes from down there. And the late season closure date, in my understanding, comes It's kind of two-pronged.

There is a concern about juvenile red king crab catch in those early times of the year in Dungeness crab gear because the southern portion of the island does include Aleutak Bay, which is sort of the last remaining concentration of red king crab in the Gulf. And the other concern was due to soft crab earlier in the season on the southern end of the island. This— the point about soft Dungeness crab and early molting I think remains, although as written, this proposal is only asking to move that opening up 2 weeks. So I'm not sure that we have— we have really no data to help inform that, mainly because soft crab don't come to the dock. They're simply not retained, and we don't see them in the retained catch.

And another thing to note there is that our historical understanding of Dungeness molt timing is not helping guide us in the future as much as it used to. As ocean conditions change, we are seeing more variable molt timing in Dungeness crab throughout the current open season. Thank you for that. So when I consider the May 1st, moving it to June 1st on the, on the north of Boot Point, you know, I, I understand soft crab, they're put back in the water. Processors aren't going to buy them.

And, um, I guess the only reason I asked the question is I would assume that, um, you know, when this May 1st date— I don't know how long the May 1st date has been in regulation. Um, if you could maybe touch on that possibly, but I would assume that the date at some point in time, um, this hard versus soft shell crab and the proportion of the dungees that were being caught on May 1st wasn't necessarily a concern for the department at that time. And so I would assume that that would kind of remain. Am I correct?

Mr. Carpenter, through the chair. So you're, you're seeing some pause from us because we don't really know how to answer that question. I think I'll just maybe echo what Nat had said previously. It seems that the molt timing for Dungeness crab is becoming maybe more asynchronous. We're just seeing more variability and more— I think molt prevalence and timing is likely to be driven by water temperature.

If you're seeing more variability, And annual intra- and over-year trends in water temperature, I think those crab are responding accordingly. It could be also that our idea that crab molted predominantly in the spring, in retrospect, may have been sort of overstated as well. And so I think you're hearing the department's hesitation to validate the existing or a change to a season date solely based on soft crab or molt timing is challenging. We just don't have the evidence to provide that for, you know, defensible decision-making. And so I think the answer is sort of yes, it is.

Should we be mindful of that? Should that be part of our decision-making? But at the same time, I don't know that we can help provide evidence to direct you into what that timing should be, at least around Kodiak Island. Well, I appreciate you saying that, and you know, it's pretty clear to me. So really, in my eyes, this is just a function of either competitive nature that exists in this fishery, access to, uh, access to grounds that, uh, so Yeah, for those reasons alone, I'm a little concerned with the portion of the proposal that tries to extend this into late November, which we did hear public testimony about specific to smaller boats and the ability to haul and retrieve gear, etc., etc., when the weather becomes worse as the winter goes on.

So I, I think for those reasons, I, I won't be supporting it at this time. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I too heard about a lot about pot loss potentially later into the season, pushing it back further. But I have a question for the department.

Is a unified, uh, start date the same as what they— has been referred to as a fair start? Or could you explain what fair start is? Certainly, Member Wood, through the chair. Um, no, they're not the same. Uh, unified start date would simply mean that we just have one start for the whole island.

Currently, we have two start dates depending on where on the island you are. Fair starts are, in my mind, typically something like a weather delay provision where the, the regulations instruct the department not to open unless conditions are favorable for all participants. That would be what a fair start would be. Okay, so if you have that currently for, for the May 1st date Through the chair, no, there is no weather delay provision in the Dungeness fishery because this is, you know, not— while it is competitive to the participants, it is a 3S management fishery with no harvest target. So the competitive nature of this is not a ray sea fishery where there's lots of boats leaving the harbor all at once to try and, you know, catch the quota before it closes, because it simply does not close until the regulatory closure date.

Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Sarray. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the Kodiak AC was in support of this with an amendment.

And could anybody speak to that? I think I know what the amendment was, and I will note RC53. And I think that that was— well, I don't— I'd have to go back and read the AC, but I would want to reference to RC53, which is propose to amend by striking June 1st under paragraph C and replacing it with May 15th. And per the RC, it mentions that the amendment represents a compromise made with the agreement among fishery participants that a May 15th start date for the island would encourage the fleet to spread out, reducing gear congestion and localized impacts potentially, and provide additional protection for emerging crab stocks. So I wanted to make sure that got on the record.

I wanted to recognize that. I'm not quite certain that that 2 weeks has that much of an impact on that, but I'm interested in other members' thoughts.

And like I said, I don't know that that's what the amendment was for the Kodiak ACA. I'd have to go back and quickly check it. And maybe if others want to chat, I can go do that. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, that was sufficient.

Thank you. Mr. Wood. Thanks. I'll just— you might have said it already, but biologic concerns for starting the fishing currently and May 1st. Is there, is there any biological problem with that?

Through the chair, there, there is some uncertainty associated with moving that start date earlier in the spring. The earlier we start, the more likely I think it is to encounter soft crab. And as we said, we really don't have a lot of information to put data behind that. I guess I will say that moving— the earlier you move it, the more uncertainty it adds.

Follow-up question on that, if I might. That unified opening date, let's just say we say that May 15th, does that have those same— does the department maintain concerns about that that immature red king crab stock at the south end of the island around Aleutak? Excellent question, Madam Chair. We do— I mean, I personally do have concerns about that stock, just given that it is essentially the last holdout of the red king crab stock in the Gulf. Again, we really have no data to support it because those crab aren't being retained.

We have no observer coverage. So the occurrence of those crab being encountered in pot gear is not something I have any data on. And honestly, I don't, I don't really hear about it. I don't hear a lot of chatter about that. But yes, that is something I do think about.

That's, that's important to me also. And, you know, just lacking that we have any, any idea what those impacts could be, I'm a little reluctant to change it, but I mean, like I said, interested in other, other thoughts. This would—. Yeah, I just like to clarify, I was asking if you had any— the date is currently May 1st, is that correct?

Through the chair, so the date is currently May 1st for the northern portion of the district and June 15th for the southern portion of the district. Okay. The southern portion of the district is what is where Allataq Bay is, and that's where the concern about red king crab is. Okay. Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll quickly touch on some—.

Subsistence review. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? No. Is this stock customarily and traditionally taken for use in subsistence? Yes.

The board has made that positive C&T for Tanner crab in the Aleutian Islands area. Can this proportion of the stock be harvested? Yes. What's the amount reasonably necessary? The board has found that 1,200 to 2,800 Dungeness crab are reasonably necessary for subsistence and Kodiak.

Do these regulations provide reasonable opportunity? I believe they do. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other opportunity? No, I don't believe so. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department.

And I would call the question.

Questions been called. Errors and omissions? Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda?

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 293. Carlson-Vandort? No. Carpenter?

No. Wood? No. Svenson? No.

Chamberlain? No. Zareh? Nope. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 295. Madam Chair, proposal 295, 5AAC 32.410, Fishing Seasons for Registration Area J. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

This is a department-submitted proposal seeking to align Dungeness crab fishing season in the North Peninsula District of Registration Area J with all the other Dungeness seasons in Area J. Currently, in North Peninsula, the closure date is October 18th, whereas the rest of Area J is October 31st. If adopted, this would provide a 14-day longer season. Again, this has been submitted by the Department in an attempt to update regulations that haven't been looked at in a while. This earlier closure date for registration Area J was related to tanner crab, Bering Sea tanner crab seasons that have since changed.

So there's really no longer a need to have this early closure date. So for that reason, we submitted and support this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. Appreciate that little historical perspective. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I once again thank the department for bringing proposals forward that number one, simplify regulations and looking through the regulation book, the things that are no longer practical. And so for that reason, I will support it.

Mr. Wood? Yep, I echo Member Carpenter's comments, and I think aligning the dates, the season dates, is a great idea. I'm supportive. Mr. Carpenter? Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in this fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department.

I call the question. Question's been called. E&O, Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraft? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 295.

Zareh? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Svensson?

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

Carpenter? Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 298. Madam Chair, Proposal 298, 5AAC 38.078, State Waters Weather Vane Scallop Management Plan.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal is seeking to close state waters in the Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor areas to commercial scallop fishing using dredge gear and allow commercial scallop fishing with other experimental gear types in these areas. It would also establish an 800-pound weekly trip limit, remove VMS requirements, vessel monitoring system requirements, and it would also remove onboard observer requirements.

In-state waters. Just for a little background here, one concern may be that closing state waters to dredge gear and establishing trip limits would likely redirect effort from state waters to adjacent federal waters. I think we heard during public comment that a lot of these beds are split by the 3-mile line, so fishing occurs on both sides currently. If the state waters portion would— was closed, the existing fleet using dredge gear would be forced to fish only in the federal water portion of those beds, increasing exploitation rates in those portions of the bed. And removing the VMS observer requirements would be financially beneficial to participants by reducing costs, but would reduce data available for fisheries monitoring and enforcement.

I think we, we had some discussion about how much fishing happens in state waters, and in the last Number of years, it's averaged about 22% of harvest.

There is a state waters scallop management plan on the books. Since its inception, we have never had a state waters only scallop boat. All participants have held federal permits and been able to fish in both federal and state waters. The department is neutral on any allocative aspects of this proposal, but we oppose aspects that limit the department's ability to manage fisheries based on assessment of effort. And available harvest.

Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Wood? Yeah, how much information does the department derive specific to— you know, my understanding is there's only a couple vessels that participate in this, and the information that's provided from harvest on those vessels the information that's gathered from the observer program, et cetera, et cetera. How much do you utilize that information to manage this particular thing?

Certainly, Member Carpenter, through the Chair, extensively is the short answer. We have 100% observer coverage. As you mentioned, it's a small fleet. In recent years, it's only been 2, but there is an observer on board while at all times while fishing operations are underway. It's our main tool for keeping track of in-season harvest and keeping track of crab bycatch, which in these fisheries we have crab bycatch limits.

We have in the past closed the fishery based on excessive bycatch. The observers are the only mechanism for keeping track of that. Further, the biological data collected from the Observer Program is fundamental for us setting harvest limits. And until recent years, it was the only tool available to us. We've— we do have a statewide scallop dredge survey ongoing now, but it's, um, it's relatively new.

I want to say maybe 7 years old at this point. But prior to that, the observer information was all we had, and it remains a long time series that we rely on heavily. Thank you for that. And just a quick follow-up: what would preclude somebody if they wanted to take a couple of pots and put a couple of disco lights, if that's the word you want to use, from going into state waters right now and seeing if it's an effective way to harvest? Sure.

Member Carpenter, through the chair, I believe that that would be allowed under— given that a person was an Alaska resident, I believe that activity would be allowed under subsistence regulations currently if they wanted to test that idea. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. Um, the red flag was ban scallop dredges, which the only viable way we're fishing for them right now, um, and replace it potentially with the Disco Light, uh, pot, uh, which isn't proven yet. Um, I did love the idea of the bifurcated, uh, federal-state waters grounds that they're dredging, uh, and it would not make sense to try to just fish on one side of the line and not the other. So I am definitely not in support of this proposal.

However, I am in support of the idea of the disco light in the pot and think the person should take full advantage of trying to see if that actually works, because it could be groundbreaking. Who knows? And it sounds like there's quite a bit of opportunity out there to actually test that. Before deciding to proposing to ban, uh, altogether. So thank you.

And in the event that the individual is ineligible for a subsistence permit, and I don't know whether or not he is or isn't, um, that might be a commissioner's permit, maybe a more appropriate avenue to try and explore some of that.

Madam Chair, that, that's correct. I think, you know, this truly would be an experimental gear type, and You know, I think it's the type of opportunity that's envisioned, you know, in the commissioner's authority to issue experimental permits. Thank you. Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person or participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. There is an omission.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 298. Chamberlain? No.

Carlson-Vandork? No. Zarey? Nope. Svenson?

No. Carpenter? No. Wood? No.

Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 280. Madam Chair, Proposal 280, 5AAC 39.645, Shellfish Onboard Observer Program. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. This proposal would remove regulatory performance standards.

For at-sea observer providers that no longer reflect current observer recruitment and retention trends do not yield improved data and are generally unenforceable. Shifting the observer program deployment performance standards from regulation to regularly renegotiated contractual agreements between observer companies and the state of Alaska removes regulatory burden and allows for more responsive and flexible observer program oversight. Provide just a little bit of background on the Observer Program here. We are talking about the Observer Program for the rationalized Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab fisheries. Each crab fishery has unique deployment rates, data collection protocols, and sampling guidelines.

Crab observers are employed by independent contractors. However, the department trains and provides direct performance and data handling oversight. Observers are deployed on commercial crab vessels that are randomly selected preseason for each fishery, and approximately 25 to 30 observers are deployed seasonally to achieve fishery coverage rates ranging from 20 to 100%, depending on the fishery and stock assessment needs. Through a competitive procurement process, the state of Alaska contracts with a single observer company to provide observers for the rationalized fisheries. Contracts are renegotiated every 3 to 5 years, and observers must meet education and experience requirements, complete department-administered training, and are assessed before and after each deployment to ensure data quality standards are achieved.

Observer training and data collection methodology undergo regular review and updates to reflect fishery monitoring and assessment needs. The current 65% observer day deployment rate standard was initially established concurrent with rationalization in 2005 and is intended to ensure data consistency and quality across years, but the 65% certified deployment standard is rarely achieved due to poor workforce retention in the observer industry. Removing the regulatory performance standards would allow the department to better address accountability and retention challenges through performance-based contract negotiations consistent with the state procurement process. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair.

Board discussion. Mr. Ziray. The Matsu Valley AC and the In Alaska Dutch Harbor AC were in favor of this, and that was all. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah.

If it's something that the department needs to clarify, I'm in full support. I mean, this quite frankly is a little bit outside of, you know, normal board actions. But if it's a function of the board, then I support the department. Mr. Wood. I as well support the department.

And as Mr. Zirais said, the Matt Valley AC took up 2 full pages of discussion on this, pros and cons and we can leave it to those guys to look at every single angle of this, which is pretty great. But I do think it's a little over my head. But that being said, I'm inclined to go with the department's recommendation and be a yes on it.

So I'm just looking at 5A AC 39645. It's a pretty lengthy section of reg. It goes on for almost 4 pages. And I just want to clarify that J is the only section that you are requesting a change to.

Madam Chair, that is correct. Okay. There is a lot that is in there. There is a lot of guidance that is— or requirements that is given to the department with this with this program, and I think that that is maintained. It is just merely the contractor portion that is being revised, and I'm comfortable with that revision because it's that discrete.

If we were being requested to repeal larger sections of that, um, that regulation, I would probably not be supportive, but I am supportive at this time. Are there any other board questions or discussions? Mr. Wood? Yeah, thanks for pointing that out, Madam Chair. Yeah, it's a little more surgical, and, uh, sorry I didn't pick up on that, but Yes, I'm still very much in support of that, and I like the observer program and the 4 pages.

I think it's quite necessary. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional costs to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions?

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 280. Carpenter? Yes.

Zareh? Yes. Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Svensson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 281. Madam Chair, Proposal 281, 5AAC 39.646, Shellfish Onboard Observer Trainee Program Qualifications and Requirements. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. This proposal would modify observer trainee qualifications by removing the statistics course requirement. Removing the statistics course requirement would broaden the applicant pool while maintaining all other relevant qualifications for observer trainees. Minimum educational requirements ensure observer trainees are prepared to collect at-sea data, typically through achieving a bachelor's degree in biological sciences. Bachelor degree programs have broadened in scope over time and now trend towards more multidisciplinary degrees that do not align well with the observer educational requirements in regulation.

The department finds the statistics course requirement is unnecessary for the role, and the course requirement has been identified as a barrier to recruitment by observer provider companies. In practice, department-led training and in-season observer program oversight are the strongest determinants of successful observer deployments. The department submitted and supports this proposal, Madam Chair. Thank you. Board discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I mean, I'm supportive of the department. I mean, the one question that I have is this: why is this a function of the board and not something that's handled administratively through the Commissioner's Office? Is there any answer to that? Mr. Carpenter to the Chair.

I think it's a good question. Observer programs are complex, a lot of moving parts. Sometimes they're contentious. And so I think that when these programs really developed, and this really came in with rationalization, that was a big fundamental change. Observer coverage under the federal FMP is delegated to the state.

So it's a state responsibility. And I think in an effort to be transparent and consistent and communicate that we are taking our delegated responsibility Seriously, we put a lot of regulations, a lot of words in regulation that shows and improves guidance on how we achieve our goals that we are delegated to achieve. Through time, we have understood that some of them are very applicable to the board process and that level of review. Some are not. These are two instances where we are asking the board to sort of pull those regulations out of regulation and give the department authority to to deal with that administratively.

Thank you for doing so. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I'm really supportive of this. God knows it's hard enough to find good labor. Anything you can do to get a hurdle out of the way is very appropriate.

So I think good move.

So thanks for the explanation about how this came before us. And personally, I think when we're talking about observer programs, in the spirit of transparency, I know there's a lot of public interest in observer programs and coverage, particularly in all the many various, many fisheries. I appreciate the department bringing this before the board to have a discussion and have it available publicly. My experience is that I graduated with BS without having stats class, but I was required to take it in graduate school. I personally enjoyed that class a lot, but, but I could, I understand, and that was 20, 25 years ago.

So I understand, you know, that that those stats requirements might significantly limit another well-qualified Bachelor of Science holder. So I will be supportive of the proposal. Any other discussion? Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like Chair Carlson-Vandort, I took statistics in college and that was my favorite class in college. I think it's an underutilized skill. And it was the most beneficial for me professionally as a trial attorney. But I do understand that an observer might not need to do the level of math that we were looking at there. So I do support that.

And like Ms. Carlson-Vandort, I do support this being brought before the board. [Speaker:CHAIR] Mr. Ziray, then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Matsu Valley AC and the Unalaska Dutch Harbor AC were in favor of this.

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

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 281. Svenson. Yes. Wood.

Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Carpenter. Yes.

Carlson-Vandork. Yes. Zareh. Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Thank you. That concludes board deliberations on Group 1. The time is 12:30. About ready to take a lunch break.

I am going to give us a pretty lengthy lunch break and come back on the record to begin deliberations on Group 2, which is subsistence sport, personal use shellfish, and Prince William Sound and Kodiak shrimp at 2:30. But I will request that any substitute language for Group 2 be submitted to board support staff for distribution by 2:00 PM. So I would like to have substitute language in by 2:00 PM so that we can hopefully get a prompt start on deliberations for Group 2 at 2:30 PM. Anything else? Mr. Swenson.

I would just like to really compliment you guys up there. You did a heck of a job and it was Great help to me personally, and I'm sure everybody else on the board. So thank you. Any other questions or comments? All right, we'll see you all back here at 2:30.

Thank you.

Alright, welcome back. The time is 2:41 PM. We are on the record. We are going to commence Committee of the Whole Group 2. As I noted before lunch, Group 2 is subsistence sport, personal use shellfish and Prince William Sound and Kodiak shrimp.

There are 22 proposals in this group and we are going to kick it off with proposal number 263, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and board members. My name is Andy Pollack. I am the Assistant Area Management Biologist for Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound commercial groundfish and shellfish. Proposal 263, 5AAC02.315, subsistence Dungeness crab fishery, 5AAC02.3XX, lawful gear for subsistence Dungeness crab fisheries. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, move to adopt Proposal 263 with substitute language found in RC 56. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, we have before us RC 56 in lieu of the original language found in Proposal 263. Staff comments, please. This proposal is modified under RC 56.

Would open a subsistence Dungeness crab fishery in the Cook Inlet area outside of the Anchorage-Matsu Kenai non-subsistence area. It would create a subsistence season from July 1st through March 31st, require a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game before harvesting crab, and create a bag and possession limit of 12 legal-size Dungeness crab, 6.5 inches or greater. It would also establish a pot limit of 1 pot or ring net per person and a maximum of 3 pots or ring nets per vessel. Each pot would also be required to have 2 escape rings with an inside diameter of no less than 4 3/8 inches. Currently, there is no open season for subsistence, sport, or commercial Dungeness crab harvest in the Cook Inlet area.

The board had made a customary and traditional use finding for shellfish stocks in Cook Inlet outside of the non-subsistence area but has not made an ANS, or amount reasonably necessary for subsistence, finding for Dungeness crab. If this proposal were adopted, it would allow a small but unknown amount of subsistence harvest on a currently unassessed stock of Dungeness crab in Cook Inlet. And a little brief background on Dungeness crab. Historically, Dungeness crab and Cook Inlet supported both commercial and non-commercial, non-commercial fisheries. The commercial fishery peaked in the late '70s and early '80s with an annual harvest up to 1 million crab and then steadily declined throughout the 1980s.

The non-commercial harvest of Dungeness crab averaged approximately 21,000 crab from 1981 through 1994. With the declining commercial harvest rate in the late '80s, the department initiated a 90-pot survey east of the Homer Spit to index abundance and assess molt timing from 1990 through 1998. The department closed the commercial fishery in 1991 due to declining harvest rates. The following years, the pot survey indicated a continuing decline in Dungeness crab abundance, which led to the board closing the commercial fishery by regulation in 1997. Non-commercial fisheries were closed by emergency order in 1998 and 1999 and closed by the board in 2000.

In 2007, there was a positive customary and traditional finding for shellfish in Cook Inlet outside of the non-subsistence area, but no ANS finding occurred for Dungeness crab due to the lack of harvest data and because the fishery was closed. There is limited information on the historical subsistence harvest of Dungeness crab. Primary data is from subsistence household harvest surveys, and since the board closed the commercial and non-commercial fisheries, there have been limited assessment of Dungeness crab stocks in Cook Inlet. In 2009, the department conducted a 30-pot survey west of the Homer Spit and did not catch any legal male Tanner crab. Dungeness crab, sorry.

Dungeness crab are caught incidentally in the Cook Inlet Tanner crab sport fishery, which occurs at deeper depths than traditional Dungeness crab fisheries. Predation by sea otters, which are common in Cook Inlet, may influence the distribution of Dungeness crab. Overall, the current status of Dungeness crab in Cook Inlet is unknown, but they have persisted and are observed throughout Kachemak Bay. Throughout Alaska, commercial and non-commercial Dungeness crab fisheries only harvest male crab that are 6.5 inches or greater in carapace width. In areas open to non-commercial harvest, harvest of Dungeness crab is generally allowed year-round with bag limits ranging from 3 to 20 crab with no annual limits.

At the December Board of Fish meeting in Cordova, subsistence fishery for Dungeness crab in the neighboring Prince William Sound area was adopted into regulation. This fishery includes a split season of March 20th through May 20th and from August 25th through December 31st. The daily bag and possession limit is 12 male Dungeness crab of 6.5 inches or greater in carapace width. And a commercial fishery was also adopted into regulation to open by emergency order authority only. The department is neutral on this proposal.

And the department is supportive of providing sustainable subsistence harvest opportunities, but recommends a precautionary management approach on a stock with very limited information and that has been closed to harvest for over 25 years. We would also require— would like to require a permit to participate in the fishery, which may provide the department with a better understanding of the status of Dungeness crab stocks in the area.

Thank you. So I think you answered my first question of the subsistence fishery was closed about 25 years ago, is that correct? Okay. Yes, that's really unfortunate. So I would also just note that in the substitute language that I've offered in RC 56, that all of the things that you said are correct, but we've also added number 5 that does require a subsistence permit in order to access the Dungeness crab in the Cook Inlet area for subsistence purposes.

And that is meant to do a couple of things. Number one, it's meant to, you know, get some information about the use and the interest in use, and also whether or not there's crab present. You haven't done a survey since, I think I heard, 2009, and that was a pretty limited survey. I think you said 30 pot perhaps? Yeah, 30 pot survey west of the Homer Spit.

Yeah, so for the last, you know, 16 years, 15, 16 years, we don't have any kind of information about what the presence of dungies are. And so I'm hoping that that permit will help at least start to color some, some, some information in unless there's a survey plan, which I would highly encourage, but have no idea. So that's the idea. I would like to provide some opportunity. The season start date that I offer here is July 1 through March 31, and that's meant to disallow harvest at sensitive times for Dungeness biology, at least as was recommended and communicated to me by the department staff.

And that's essentially what the, what the substitute language does. I'm looking to provide a little bit of subsistence opportunity to sort of dip our toes in the water in terms of accessing some Dungeness crab, getting an idea what's there, and certainly want to start with subsistence opportunity before potentially expanding it beyond for other users. And I will open it up to board discussion. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you.

I was totally moved by the traditional knowledge report on this and relying— I think that worked exactly the way it was supposed to, giving us insight into what it was in the past in light of the fact that there's not a lot of science behind this now. And I think that report and the personal testimony that we heard really was obvious to me that having the subsistence fishery opened is really important. And I'm totally in support of it. I think having permits so we can start understanding like what's out there is good so we can keep track of it. So I'm 100% for it at this level.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. The only other thing that I was going to add to this is that, you know, I had a conversation and with the proposers.

About this permit requirement, and I feel very strongly about the permit requirement. And I also wanted to note that if the department is not getting compliance with reporting under the permit, the department maintains the ability to close down that fishery for conservation concerns if you have no idea what's being accessed. And I just want to confirm that. Yes, Madam Chair. So if this proposal is adopted as envisioned in RC 56, issued permits, if we experienced poor reporting and compliance with the reporting requirements, that would be an option for us is to close the fishery.

And it's something that we would likely do given the lack of information about the stock and, you know, our belief that it's probably a relatively small stock. Thanks. Thank you. So that just kind of goes with, you know, along with access comes responsibility. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is across all stakeholder groups and all user groups that access the resources of the state of Alaska.

So I am more than comfortable with that and, and think that hopefully we'll get some, some good reporting and good compliance with the permit requirement. Mr. Wood. Yeah, one thing, last thing about the permit. I really appreciate being able to get a permit online. And I really super appreciate the reminders to fill out my permit and resubmit it.

So keep doing that. Other board discussion, please. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I, I'm supportive of this. I think that there's enough control in place and obviously the department's going to be keeping track of this through the reporting process and understand that they have the ability to, if reporting isn't done, I feel comfortable with allowing that.

So hopefully some information can be derived from this in regards to the Dungeness stocks in Lower Cook Inlet, and hopefully it provides opportunity to the subsistence users in the non-subsistence area of Cook Inlet. And anyway, having said that, I'll go ahead and touch on the subsistence review regulation. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? Portions of the stock are in the Anchorage-Matsu non-subsistence areas described in 5 AAC 99015(a)(3). This is a stock customer intrinsically taken.

Yes, in 2007 the board made a positive C&T findings for shellfishing in Cook Inlet area outside the Anchorage-Matsu non-subsistence area. Can this portion of stock be consistent with sustained yield?

I believe so. I hope so. Is— what is the amount necessary? The board has not determined an amount of Dungeness crab reasonably necessary for subsistence uses. Do these regulations provide reasonable opportunity?

I think this is creating opportunity for subsistence users. And is it necessary to reduce or eliminate other uses to provide reasonable opportunity? Obviously, that will be a determination that the board has to make with other proposals, but we will have to wait and see on that. So having said that, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would result in an additional cost to the department to collect permit information. And I will see if anyone else has a comment.

Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Anchorage AC and the Matanuska Valley AC were in opposition. Quick question, just to make sure that I'm being consistent with terms here. So there is a portion of the stock that is in the non-subsistence area, but that would not be eligible for harvest under a subsistence permit, correct?

That's correct. But per your map, Figure 263-1, the areas in white are open to subsistence or would be open to subsistence under the— either the proposed language as originally submitted or under the RC.

Madam Chair, were you referring to 263-1? Yes. Yes, the area in white is the subsistence area, which would be open to the taking of Dungeness crab, right? And then the areas that are the salt waters closed to subsistence would remain closed, is that correct? Madam Chair, that is correct.

Thank you very much for those clarifications. Any other questions? Been called errors and omissions. Director Bowers. No, Madam Chair.

Director Rita. No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Brookings. No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff. No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please.

Final action on Proposal 263 as amended. Wood. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes.

Zareh. Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Svensson.

Yes. Carlson-Vandort. Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal number 265.

Madam Chair, Mike Booze, Lower Cook Inlet Sport Fish Area Manager. Proposal 265, 5AAC58022, Water Seasons Bag Possession Annual and Size Limits and Special Provisions for the Cook Inlet Resurrection Bay Saltwater Area. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, proposal 265 is seeking to establish a sport Dungeness crab fishery for the Cook Inlet/Res Bay area with a season of October through February, a bag and possession limit of 1 legal size male crab and an annual limit of 5. The proposal is also looking to limit gear to 1 pot or ring net per vessel. A permit is already required to harvest shellfish with pots in Cook Inlet sport fisheries. This proposed structure is similar to the Cook Inlet sport Tanner crab fishery that we already have. The Cook Inlet Dungeness sport fishery occurred in all saltwaters of the Cook Inlet/Res Bay area and has been closed since 1998.

Like the reference, all the recent discussion for background in Proposal 263 for Cook Inlet Dungeness crab, the department is neutral to this proposal, although the proposal would provide a limited harvest opportunity for Dungeness crab with a size, sex, and season structure similar to other fisheries in Alaska, the department recommends a precautionary approach for this stock without any assessment. Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion? I'll kick it off.

I'm going to reference my comments from the previous proposal. And while I would be very intrigued and interested in creating some sport opportunity in this, I'm not quite comfortable with doing that yet, especially, you know, given that we just allowed some very limited opportunity for subsistence. I'm comfortable with that because that's reflective of the subsistence priority that we have in statute.

I would like to see what kind of information we can glean from that before expanding it, but I do think that the proposal is very reasonable in terms of the numbers that they're requesting to be able to harvest. But I would like to just be ultra-conservative moving forward. So I'm not quite comfortable personally with expanding into the sport, but I'd be very interested in looking at that in the future, and I think the board should consider it, and hopefully we'll have a little bit more information based on the subsistence permits to do so. Mr. Ziray, then Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Anchorage AC, Matanuska Valley AC, the Seldovia AC all were in favor of that, and the Homer AC was opposed. That's interesting when they are opposed to subsistence expansion but okay with sport. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, just a couple questions. Number one, um, would this also allow non-residents to participate?

Through the chair to Member Carpenter, yeah, this is a sport proposal, so both a resident and non-resident, uh, users would be able to participate. Okay, then maybe just a little basic lesson for my— on my— for my behalf. Does Cook Inlet in general have a lot of Dungeness habitat outside of the areas that we just opened for subsistence? Through the chair to Member Carpenter, yeah, Dungeness crab occur throughout Cook Inlet. Historically, when we had larger commercial and non-commercial fisheries, the area where most of the harvest occurred occurred in the non-subsistence area, primarily just west of the Homer Spit, within a few miles.

Though Dungeness do occur, you know, they're a shallower water crab than Tanner crab that we have in Kachemak Bay. But yeah, they would occur everywhere, including West Cook Inlet, Kameshak Bay, and moving up the coast all the way as far as Chinitna Bay. Mr. Thank you for that. And then I guess when you talk about most of the activity was just west of the Homer Spit in past years, that was also the area where you did your last pot survey that really found.

A non-presence, quite frankly, of adult male crab. Is that correct? Through the chair, yeah, that's correct. Historically, the pot survey that Mr. Pollack was talking about primarily occurred on the east side of the Homer Spit. That survey was kind of designed more as an area that was more easily surveyed, with the assumption that Dungeness moved in and out of Kachemak Bay.

It wasn't necessarily with the intention to do a pot survey for the entire area that encompasses where Dungeness are found, or even where the fisheries occurred. The, the sport area, or some of the incidental stuff that we, we heard in the background for the incidental catch of Dungeness in the sport tanner crab fishery, that's occurring west of the spit, more in proximity where they were harvested. Thank you for that information. That's helpful to me. I think, quite frankly, a cautious approach is probably warranted at this time, in my opinion.

I think we just created subsistence opportunity, as the Chair also stated, that that is kind of the constitutional mandate of the Board to create that, and I think we did. And so, for those reasons, I think at this time, I wish that I could provide more opportunity throughout Cook Inlet for a sport fishery, but I think we need to be cautious and maybe see what kind of results we get from harvest information over the next 3 years. So I'll be reluctantly against this. Yeah, just to— again, I appreciate Member Carpenter's questions because, and again, that also speaks to sort of my trepidation or reluctance to expand this too much too fast, is because that area is one of the most accessible and premier saltwater sport fishing charter areas, you know, non-chartered areas in the state. And I can see there being a lot of interest in being able to harvest Dungeness.

And so again, just a cautionary approach. There's a lot, there's a lot of, a lot of sport fishing that happens out of those nearby ports. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I as well, along the very same lines, we just did this with subsistence, and I am totally comfortable with that because of their history with subsistence over there. But I, the This board is a little too much of a stretch for me in terms of where we're at with this crab population.

And maybe with these permits being submitted and we'll know a little bit more in 3 years that this is something we can revisit.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The, the Matanuska Valley AC with amendments supported it, and the Anchorage AC and the Homer AC both opposed it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost, uh, to the department to collect this information. I was— I would also reference my subsistence review from the prior proposal, and if there's nothing further, I'd call the question.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Questions been called? Errors and omissions? Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair.

Director Payton? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 265.

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

No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain? No.

Zareh? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 264.

Madam Chair, proposal 264, 5 AAC 58022, water seasons bag possession annual and size limits and special provisions for the Cook Inlet Resurrection Bay saltwater area. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on proposal 264 based on board action on 265. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 264.

Proposal 267. Madam Chair, Proposal 267, 5AAC 38408, Registration Area H Tanner Crab Harvest Strategy. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Proposal 267 is a department proposal seeking to modify the abundance thresholds for the non-commercial crab fisheries in the Cook Inlet area from a— using a 3-year average to using the most recent abundance estimate. This would also rectify an incorrect regulation reference for the non-commercial fisheries. The non-commercial Tanner crab fisheries in the Cook Inlet area include both sport and subsistence fisheries and are structured into 2 fisheries based on the abundance of legal male crab from the Kachemak Bay trawl survey. In the absence of the trawl survey, or if the 3-year average is less than or equal to 200,000 crab, then the limit— limited fishery occurs.

This fishery season is from October through February, has a bag limit of 3 legal males, an annual limit of 20 male crab, and gear is limited to 1 pot or ring net. If the 3-year average is greater than 200,000 crab, the standard fishery occurs. And this, this season would provide approximately double the harvest opportunity than the limited fishery, with a longer season, increased bag and annual limits, and allow two pots or ring nets. This proposal would, would result in more timely management and provide additional harvest opportunity when the abundance threshold is met to the open standard fishery. The department submitted and supports this proposal.

Although the department has not conducted the Kachemak Bay trawl survey in the last 5 years due to the loss of funding and the loss of a department research vessel in Homer, changing the abundance thresholds to be based on the most recent survey will provide a more cost-effective approach to providing additional non-commercial harvest opportunities for Tanner crab. Madam Chair. Thank you. More discussion? Mr. Carpenter.

That part's a little confusing to me. Maybe you can help me understand it better. So number one, what's the 200,000-pound— what relevancy does that have?

Through the chair to Member Carpenter, it's the abundance of legal male tanner crab from the Kachemak Bay trawl survey. It's just a threshold to decide whether or not we have the smaller sport Tanner crab fishery or the non-commercial fisheries or the larger ones. So if the— if we go out and conduct the survey and we meet that threshold, then we go to the standard fishery and regulation, and there's basically twice the amount of harvest opportunity within that. If we don't conduct the trawl survey, or if the abundance is below that, then we're down to the limited fishery with the shorter season, reduced gear, and reduced bag and annual limits. And just maybe a quick follow-up to that.

I think I understand what you're talking about now, so thank you for doing that. If you don't do the survey, you're always going to fall back on the lower season dates and bag limits. Through the chair, that is correct. Okay. And without the survey, are you comfortable with— I mean, 5 years, I don't know, I guess that's not that long ago, but in survey terms, that's a long time ago.

Are you still comfortable with allowing that shorter and smaller bag limit season to exist even without that information? Through the chair to Member Carpenter, it's a really good question. What we look at based on the harvest strategy— the harvest strategy is outlined to harvest less than 10% of the legal male abundance. Although we haven't been conducting trawl surveys recently, we do have a bunch of historical surveys, and we know the lowest abundance of legal male crab that we've seen in the survey was around 80,000 crab. So with that, we have a metric to assess the harvest that we get from the permit data.

And with that, we are currently seeing that the harvest— the annual harvest is below 8,000. And so we feel like, yes, the currently the harvest that we're seeing is sustainable and with— is consistent with what's outlined in the harvest strategy. Okay, then one final follow-up. So if the last bit of information you have is 80,000 and you know that the, the exploitation rate that you're looking for is about 10%, if you were to see permits returned that were in excess of that number, would you take action the next, next year even though the regulatory language says under this number, this is what the season would be? Would you be more cautious at that time based on the exploitation rate being above 10%?

Through the chair to Member Carpenter, I— based on everything that we see, I think, you know, there might be some other indices or fisheries indications.

To give us more information to, to better assess whether or not we should take action preseason leading up to that. But most certainly, I feel like that would be a trigger for us to do something preseason to further restrict the fishery, to keep it to less than 8,000. Okay, well, listen, I appreciate all that information. I think having said that, and I just wanted to put it on the record that, you know, because I think those are important things to consider in lieu of not having, you know, real current survey information. So I feel comfortable with that.

I appreciate the department bringing this forward. It does create opportunity in light of not having that survey information. So I trust that you'll do the right thing to manage this. So thank you. Mr. Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I'm looking at Table 267-1, and To your comments to Member Carpenter about that, if you got around that 8,000 limit or you went over next year, of course you'd wonder, should we be more cautious in the following year? But would that also just be an indication that there's more crab there and make you go, wow, maybe we should start seeing, you know, what the abundance level is out here? It could work the other way.

Through the chair to Member Wood, I'll, I'll try to frame that into a question. I think for looking at Table 267 on page 150, you can see in the, the recent 3 years with the, the fishery as we have it structured for the limited fishery with, without the, the trawl survey and the annual limit, this, the, even with a slight increase in effort, the stable, the harvest has been relatively stable for what we're seeing. So we feel like these are good harvests. We know even without our trawls, without having our trawl survey, this stock has pretty similar trends to what we're seeing in Kodiak for their trawl survey and, and how they had a really large recruitment of crab starting in 2018, and those crab have, you know, matured and recruited to the fishery. The harvests that we've had in these recent years are those same crab in, in Kachemak Bay.

And so these are harvests with really good numbers of Tanner crab around. So yeah, I feel like we were likely with a very conservative harvest rate and more likely we missed harvest opportunity by not conducting the trawl surveys in this year. These years. Great. Thanks for that answer.

That really helps tonight. And I'm, I'm very comfortable with what you're proposing here. Any other board discussion? Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Anchorage AC was in favor of this and there was no opposition. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also reference my subsistence review earlier.

The only thing that I'd like to add to that is we're talking about Tanner crab here. And the amount necessary for subsistence uses has been determined to be 275 to 1,400 Tanner crab found in 5A(C)(2)(3)(1)(1)(b)(4). Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Thank you.

The question has been called. Errors and omissions, and I am never sure who's got the APU, but given who is speaking to me, I'm going to take a semi-educated guess and I'm going to go with Director Payton. No, Madam Chair. Director Powers, just let's go down the line for fun. No, Madam Chair.

Director Ueda. No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings. No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff.

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 267. Chamberlain. Yes.

Carlson VanDort. Yes. Zareh. Yes. Stinson.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Wood. Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. 268, Please.

Madam Chair, Proposal 268, 5AAC58035, Methods, Means, and General Provisions, Shellfish. Madam Chair. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 268 would prohibit the harvest of tanner crab from a charter vessel when guiding. Statewide regulations stipulate that guide services may not provide non-commercially harvested shellfish to clients unless the shellfish has been taken with gear deployed and retrieved by the clients. This proposal would limit access to cook-inlet tanner crab for users without boats. With the current fishery structure of the limited fishery that we just talked about, approximately 1,700 people have participated annually in the, in the recent years and have harvested about 7,000 crab. Prior, prior to this season, there's been no information on the Tanner crab harvest and effort by charter, charter users.

For this season, permit reporting included whether commercial guide services were used on the online permit. Preliminary harvest reporting for this season shows that about 15% of the harvest was by crabbers on charters. The department is neutral on this allocative proposal. The current harvest level is likely to be less than 10% of the legal male abundance, which is consistent with the harvest strategy for the stock. Madam Chair, thank you for discussion.

Mr. Carpenter, we've obviously seen some things like this that have come up across the state and Thank you for providing that information. I'm very happy to see that you're collecting that information online now because I think it's probably going to become more relevant as we go down the line here. Do you have any idea what the breakdown on that is in regards to resident/non-resident, or is this just a resident, um, Through the chair to Member Carpenter, this is primarily a local residence fishery, but the harvest of Tanner crab in the fishery has increased a little bit, and it's been about 10 to 12% the last few years. 10, 12% For non-residents?

Non-resident users, yes. Okay, that's interesting. Thank you. I think it's— I don't know. I— this one always kind of sticks in my craw a little bit because I have a hard time believing that an operator is going to let somebody at his hydraulics just for fun.

You know, here's the pot gear, here's some hydraulics, don't pinch your fingers. I doubt it. So this has always kind of been suspicious to me a little bit, and I think it's real fuzzy in terms of how the regs are currently written. I'm not particularly comfortable with it. I understand the spirit of which the proposal was offered, but I just, I'm interested in hearing some of the discussion around the table on this point.

Mr. Wood, then Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks. I recall visiting this similar idea in different areas around the state and the complications involved with it. I think so we do have some precedent out there set already. Regarding some of the decisions we've made.

It sounds like it could be a difficult one to enforce, and I do appreciate the fact that non-boat owners, the resident non-boat owners, could go out there and do this with a charter. However, I'm not sure that that would be the majority of the people, and because this is allocative, looking at the criteria And it does talk about the importance of each fishery and providing recreational opportunities for residents and non-residents. But I think if, if we do, you know, this open it up, it, it could be, I don't know, it could be kind of tricky. So I'll listen to others. Mr. Carpenter.

Yeah, I'd like to ask Captain DeGraaf if he could maybe talk about the enforcement side of things here, because it seems to me that this would be very difficult to enforce.

Yes, through the chair, I'm going through my notes here, and our two troopers that are down there now had commented on this in regards to, you know, they're seeing that this is becoming more and more popular with non-residents. There was a question that Chairwoman brought up in regards to who's really operating the gear some of this terminology not being codified for, um, uh, where's the word here, you know, the deploying and retrieving the gear there. And barring, um, you know, a disgruntled client coming forward, uh, there would be real no way to kind of enforce it. So we're just kind of seeing anecdotally there's definitely an increase in non-resident use of this. And it's— yeah, it's hard to say because unless we're at the boat seeing what's going on and then determine residency, not a whole lot we can do with it.

So in terms of enforcement though, I mean, that's currently what's happening. That's, that's the current practice. So if, if the proposal.

Were to pass and that was disallowed from a charter vessel, would that make enforcement any clearer or easier unless it was reported? I don't think so. I think it would still have to be reported or we'd have to see it happening and go verify what they deployed. But in terms of reporting, that might, that might create a little bit more assurance or something. I don't know.

Yes. In fact, one of the— when I reached out to one of our troops there, he had just talked to a local Fish and Game office where a group of folks had come in, you know, for their permits and the system was down there getting their permits for it and reporting is going on. So I'm sure that's helpful in terms of trying to figure out the quantity of numbers for Fish and Game. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. And Mr. Swenson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, chewing on this is hard for me. I see there's a, there's a lot of potential for abuse by allowing, by allowing this, but at the same time, I also know a significant number of Alaska residents who do charter within Alaska because sometimes that's your only fishing opportunity. With With the numbers where they are, it seems like we're in a relatively stable position. I'm slightly leaning towards voting no on this, but I'm— if these numbers do change substantially, yeah, I'll be happy to revisit this. But right now I'm just a slight no.

Mr. Swenson.

Isn't what's going on here is they're taking these people out to rockfish or whatever they're doing, and this is just a side deal? They throw the pots over the side and, and that's what's going on. I don't think people are asking guides to take them out to catch crab. Through the chair to Member Swenson, this is a wintertime fishery that occurs October through February. Our primary other sport fishery in Kachemak Bay during that time is fishing for winter king salmon, which has become quite popular.

And so the charters are adding this into their trip for the day. So they would go out and deploy the crab pot first, go off, troll for king salmon, and then come back and pull the pot at the end of the day.

Well, I'm like with— with Ms. Van Dort here, you know, they're not allowing the client to be using that equipment. They're doing it. So I mean, I would be a definite yes on this to prohibit them from allowing that. Thank you.

Let's get back to— I have a question about just to— I mean, just to revisit the discussion that we had in the previous proposal in terms of abundance.

Are there currently— I mean, just again, back on the record for this particular proposal— is there abundance levels available to permit sport harvest? Are there conservation concerns with the current level of sport harvest for Tanner crab? Madam Chair, based on all the information that we have, despite not having the trawl survey, we're confident that the current harvest level is sustainable. There's, there's no conservation concerns with this stock at this time. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER_MARTINEZ] Thank you.

Like I mentioned on the record earlier, I'm kind of torn on this one a little bit just because primarily I don't believe that the harvest is being done, or I have struggled to believe that the harvest is being done 100% within the bounds of the current regulation and law. That being said, there is abundance, so there is opportunity, or there should be, in my opinion, opportunity to provide access to the sport fishery. This proposal, I think, takes it a step farther than I would have been comfortable with by limiting charter entirely. And maybe, you know, another approach would have been to, you know, take a look at resident/non-resident, which we can do within state waters in terms of limiting. But that's not what this proposal does.

So that might have been a little bit more compelling, but either way, It's a difficult, difficult reg to enforce. We've talked about that. I'm probably not going to support this proposal at this time, although I understand the spirit in which it was offered, because it is— it's pretty slippery. Any other discussion? Mr. Ziraid, then Mr. Wood.

[Speaker:MR_ZIRAI] Thank you, Madam Chair. The Central Peninsula AC and the Homer AC were in favor of this. The Prince William Sound Valdez AC, with amendments, was in favor. And the Anchorage AC was in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. I think the enforcement part of it is really settling into me, like how difficult that would be. Also the time of year, probably not something that's going to get completely taken advantage of. So, yeah.

I'll probably be a no. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you. Not exactly sure what I'm going to do yet, but I'm going to read this cost analysis and decide.

The thing that gets me is we don't have any survey information, and I understand the department feels comfortable, but I don't want to take the opportunity away from people that live in the state that don't have access, don't own a boat, to be able to go and do this. The part that bothers me is the non-resident part, that we have non-residents fishing on Tanner crab in the winter in an unenforceable situation. To me, that's a stretch. And so I'm not going to support it at this time. But if I am on the board in the future and it was written differently, I might have a different opinion.

So I will go ahead and reference my subsistence regulatory review from the prior proposal. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery. And approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department. I'd call the question. Question's been called.

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

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 268. Carpenter? No. Zareh?

Nope. Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood? No.

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? No. Motion fails, 1 in favor, 5 against.

Madam Chair.

Proposal 266. Madam Chair, Proposal 266, 5AAC 77010, Methods, means, and general restrictions. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Proposal 266 would add crab snares and foldable crab nets and a line attached to a rod to deploy crab gear to the statewide personal use crab gear definitions. Personal use crab fisheries have been repealed from regulation for almost all areas of the state excluding Southeast Alaska. This proposal would allow additional harvest opportunity, particularly by shore-based anglers using methods that are less efficient than the current legal gear for crab. It would add regulatory complexity by only allowing these gear in personal use fisheries and not sport or subsistence fisheries. There may be some leg loss if the capture occurs during molting season, and loss of gear may result in ghost fishing because there are no biodegradable escape mechanisms with these gear.

The department is neutral on this proposal. Adoption of the proposal would require defining the gear in regulation. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion. Mr.

Carpenter, is the target here Dungeness crab? Through the chair. To Member Carpenter, yes, primarily Dungeness crab would be used for, for these. It's pretty common gear in the lower 48 for shore-based anglers to catch Dungeness crab with, with snares. Well, I guess my question to that is the sport fishery for Dungeness crab isn't open.

This would—. We only have a subsistence fishery, which the subsistence users did not request this gear at all. So where, where would they be conducting shore-based fisheries using this gear to target Dungeness crab? Because you're surely not going to do it for Tanner crab. Through the chair to Member Carpenter, I should have been a little more clear.

This is a statewide gear proposal for all personal use crab fisheries. So there are no personal use crab fisheries in Alaska except for Southeast Alaska. So this would be used in Dungeness crab fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Excuse my ignorance. For sure, I overlooked that part.

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. So I actually used not the snare traps but the foldable traps in Ocean Shores, Washington, for about 2 weeks. And if anyone ever catches a legal crab in one of those, kudos.

To them. This is an exercise in futility. And, um, but I don't see gear loss being a— and ghost fishing being a, a large thing. I know with the snares there, there may be a little loss on those, but with the foldable traps I'm not terribly worried. Um, but, and they're, they're such a low yield It's such a futile fishing mechanism that I think the crabs are safe.

So I'll support it. Sure it wasn't operator error? Just kidding. I'm just kidding. I am absolutely not sure.

I'm just teasing. I have no idea. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thanks. So I too am familiar with this all up and down the East Coast.

People are after little blue crabs with nets, and usually the amount of chicken they use for bait is way more meat than what they're actually catching. So I'm somewhat surprised they do it, but I'm not familiar with these snares. Do they— do these need to be monitored and then they're pulled around as you're watching? Because all of the crab fishing I've seen with PU has always been like sight fishing. So is this— does the snare apply that way as well?

Through the chair to Member Wood, the snares are very similar to trapping snare for, for furbearers. So basically there's a loop of wire, and you can see an illustration for— on page 147, figure 266. But basically there's a series of loops, and those are all snares. When some, some devices are set up for when the angler pulls it, the snare is tightened down on the legs. So it would take a crab either being completely in there or by a leg, and then an angler or crabber would, you know, be retrieving that either by hand or with a rod and reel.

Okay, so it's within that day they're watching this. It's not like we set a snare and come back a week later. Through the chair, that's correct. Okay, thanks. Yeah, it's attended fishing.

Okay, great. All right, thanks.

Just for the record, I've been pretty transparent about my lack of any kind of Sport fish prowess. Mr. Swenson.

It says here that it would allow complexity, regulation complexity, by allowing this gear to be personal use fisheries. Through the chair to Member Swenson, that's just— there's a fair bit of overlap in the statewide definitions for for gear towards shellfish between sport, personal use, and subsistence. So this proposal is specifically addressing only personal use. And so it's only— if adopted, it would only be in personal use and not the other two. So that's all that we meant by regulation complexity.

And then it says in here too, you know, that— I don't know, the crab be losing some legs. I'd hate to be a crab and lose some of my legs in this deal too. But I guess I don't know how big of a concern that is. I guess they re— they can regenerate their legs also, can't they? Through the chair to Member Swenson.

Yes, at molting, they would regenerate legs. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wood, then Captain DeGraaff. Okay, thanks. Yeah, if this allows more opportunity and it's allowed to be done in an area where there's enough crab, I'm for it.

Captain. Madam Chair, AWT is neutral on adding the additional methods and means. But in terms of talking about complexity here, we want to make sure that these traps and foldable crab nets would be defined to be enforceable in 5AC39105. And that would help, I think, certainly with eliminating the confusion and helping with enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you, Captain. I—. Mr. Zarey, go ahead. Just like to thank you, Madam Chair. The Anchorage AC, the Prince William Sound Valdez AC, and the Unalaska Dutch Harbor AC were all in favor.

And that was— that's it. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. I don't think I'm going to support this. I mean, I think— I think there's other ways to do this.

It's very specific to Southeast. I would have preferred to see this come up in Southeast specifically, although I realize that they're trying to do it Statewide, maybe that would change. I'm not there, so I'm interested in other members' thoughts. Mr. Carpenter? I'm not going to support it either, just because of— I think that creating regulation without a clear definition to enforce it is something that I'm not usually in favor of doing.

So for that reason alone, I think that that needs to be worked on and included in this proposal if it were to come before me again. Mr. Wood? Yeah, you know, the, uh, the fact that the captain brought that up really does matter because I am very familiar with snares and how they work, and, uh, and they can catch a whole lot of things. So for that reason, especially without the definition, it kind of falls right in there with the old slinky pot. And so I'll be opposing.

Any other discussion? Mr. Chamberlain? Yeah, so I know what the gear type is and I'm fully in support of it, but I do think that is a bit of housekeeping that needs to get done before this, before this would get approved or before I'd be comfortable approving this because yeah, you can do a lot with a little bit of rope. So yeah, for now I'm no, but I would love to see this come around in the future. All right, Mr. Carpenter.

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

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. I don't think there's a subsistence, but we'll, we'll play with it. Director Vida? No, Madam Chair.

All right. Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 266. Svenson? No. Wood?

No. Chamberlain? No. Carpenter? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Zarey? Nope. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

Proposal 269. Madam Chair, for the record, I'm Holly Dixon, Lower Cook Inlet Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposed 269-5AAC-58.026, shellfish harvest recording form required, and 5AAC-77.507, shellfish harvest recording form required. Madam Chair, moved to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please.

This department proposal would establish a new requirement for a permit to participate in the Cook Inlet Resurrection Bay saltwater area razor clam sport and personal use fisheries. This would also establish a reporting requirement, a failure to report penalty, and an appeals process for permit holders. Currently, a permit is not required and harvest and effort are estimated by the statewide harvest survey. Recent response rates to the statewide harvest survey for Cook Inlet shellfish fisheries have been low, including for both east and west Cook Inlet razor clam fisheries. In 2023, when the East Cook Inlet limited fishery opened, only 9 responses were received, and the statewide harvest survey estimate was only 6% of the total harvest estimate that we derived from the department's creel surveys.

Without a permit, future East Cook Inlet fishery openings would require intensive creel surveys to obtain high-quality harvest data, and West Cook Inlet harvest estimates will likely continue to be imprecise. Requiring a permit is consistent with other sports shellfish fisheries such as Prince William Sound shrimp and Cook Inlet Tanner crab. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter or Mr. Wood?

Yeah, thanks. I'm all for the permitting for recording and getting an understanding of how many are being removed and when and where. So All for it as long as they turn it in in a timely manner. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I'm for it too, because quite frankly, those percentages of information that the department's been collecting about something that's not really doing all that well and where there's a tremendous amount of access to, I think this is exactly what needs to happen.

And I encourage the department to do this in other places where they have such low numbers of reporting also.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with those last two comments too. The Anchorage AC and the Homer AC were in favor of this proposal, and the Central Peninsula AC and the Matanuska Valley AC were opposed.

Thank you. Mr. Swenson. I was just going to make the comment that I think yes for this permit. If you want to go dig as many clams as you can dig, go down the west side of Cook Inlet. I've done it and crawled around in the sand chasing those damn clams.

And so they got plenty of opportunity if somebody doesn't want to file, you know, file a permit. Thank you.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would result in some additional cost to the department to collect permit information. I call the question. Mr. Payton. Yeah, I just want to make sure board members are clear that this would cover all clams in Cook Inlet, west side and east side.

No errors or omissions. Well, I haven't heard the question yet. No, just kidding. The question has been called. I recognized it now.

No errors, no omissions. I don't imagine you have a nexus here, Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Director Lita?

It's in the NSA. No, Madam Chair. And Ms. Brookings? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 269. Wood? Yes.

Carlson-Vandort? Yes. Zareh? Yes. Chamberlain?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Thanks. Let's take about a 10-minute break and come back on the record and continue with our deliberations. 10 Minutes.

Okay, we are back on the record. The time is— sorry, Annie— 3:55, and we are at proposal 270. 270, Please. Madam Chair, for the record, Holly Dixon, Lower Cook Inlet Assistant Area Manager for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 270, 5AAC58.040, East Cook Inlet Razor Clam Sport Fishery Management Plan, and 5AAC77.519, East Cook Inlet Razor Clam Personal Use Fishery Management Plan.

Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This department proposal would shorten the season for the East Cook Inlet sport and personal use razor clam limited fisheries to a single month, either within the month of July or August. It would also reduce the bag and possession limit to the first 15 razor clams taken.

Under the management plan adopted by the board in 2022, East Coconite razor clam fisheries are closed unless abundance thresholds are met. When opened, the limited fishery allows harvest for 5 months and the bag and possession limit is the first 30 razor clams taken. In 2023, razor clam abundance met the threshold to open the limited fishery, and the department issued a preseason emergency order to reduce the season and bag limit due to uncertainty on how much effort there would be after nearly a decade of the fishery being closed. During this reduced 4-day fishery, the harvest rate remained low, with a total harvest of 2.3% of the adult razor clam abundance. Within the proposed 1-month season, There would be about 12 to 13 days with a low enough tide for diggers to harvest razor clams.

These proposed changes provide a harvest opportunity that's better aligned with a harvest of less than 10% as outlined in the management plan, and also gives the public and the board the opportunity to decide a preference for season. The department submitted and supports this proposal. Madam Chair, thank you. For discussion, Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks, Holly.

Um, could you explain the either/or part a little bit? I'm not quite clear on that one. Yeah, through the chair to Member Carpenter, thanks for the question. We wrote it that way with the hope that the public and the board would decide the preference to have the fishery either within the month of July or the month of August. We feel that either month is an acceptable month for the fishery to occur.

There's some different factors to consider with each month. So just all to go over those real quick. Okay. In July, there's a lot more people on the Kenai Peninsula than there are in August. Historically, July was one of the peak months with effort when this fishery was open prior to 2015.

July also typically has better weather, not always, but typically, and that leads to a lot better success finding shows on the beach and digging razor clams. So in general, there's typically but not always a preference from clam diggers for July rather than August, although I will say when we opened the fishery in July in 2023, we received a lot of feedback from diggers on the beach who would have been in favor of a later season with less people. The other thing To consider about the difference between July and August is the spawn timing of razor clams in Cook Inlet. The peak spawn is the last week of July, first week of August, so harvesting in August would give most razor clams a chance to spawn that year prior to, prior to harvest, although diggers often prefer to harvest clams prior to the spawn. And just one last point on that The thresholds and the fishery are based on adult razor clams.

So all clams that, you know, would be harvested in the fishery or that trigger the opening would have spawned at least once already in their lifetime. Madam Chair. Then maybe one other, if I could just follow up real quick. It says the first 15 clams that are taken and possessed. So that kind of throws the size limit out the window.

Or is that the way I'm reading that? Yeah, through the chair to Member Carpenter. That's correct. But that's how the regulation is currently written. And so clam diggers have to keep the first 15 clams dug.

It's the same on the west side, and it's been a longstanding regulation on the east side throughout the history of that fishery. It's written that way to prevent clam diggers from putting clams with broken shells back into the sand. They're very unlikely to survive. And a lot of diggers break a lot of clams. Thank you.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, in a, in a, in an area where there's some.

Conservation concerns, is there— would there be any reason to want to wait until, you know, to harvest after the spawn?

Through the chair to Member Wood, I would just say again what I already said, that, you know, the clams harvested in the fishery are adult razor clams. They have all spawned at least once, likely 2 or 3 times prior to that.

Another thing to note is that based on some genetic data we have, East Cook Inlet razor clams are not necessarily replacing East Cook Inlet razor clams. There's no genetic difference between East and West Cook Inlet razor clams. The beginning of razor clam life is spent as free-floating plankton. So, you know, it's sort of a melting pot out there. West Cook Inlet may be replacing East Cook Inlet.

Given tides and currents, it's, you know, potential that Cordova razor clams are even influencing what settles on the beaches in East Cook Inlet. Sure. Okay, thank you. Yes, public testimony. It did— at least one testifier recommended July over August, so I had that.

I noted here, I like the department's, you know, putting forward a proposal like this that limits, you know, that has some precautionary aspects of it, keeping it to the first 15 and keeping it 2:15. So I'm glad you're doing this. And I guess based on the public comment and what you're saying, my choice would be July.

What is the, I guess, mortality within the razor clam harvest? I mean, certainly, I mean, are people breaking shells of smaller clams? What's going on there? Is what— do we need to consider that in terms of the timing, how many people are trying to do this? Level of expertise.

And I, I'm tending to lean toward August after the spawn. I mean, we got problems with this population. I don't know why we would even consider doing it before the spawn. I don't really, but please expound.

Madam Chair, yeah, I, I think the, the level of mortality besides what's harvested is very low. You know, it's the first razor, first 15 or the first clams taken is there, you know, to prevent that. So if you're digging and you hit another clam or you get a small clam while you're digging after a larger clam, you're required to keep that as part of your bag limit. Madam Chair. Okay.

So just for clarity, the department is asking the board to amend their proposal to, to define whether it's in July or August, because that's awkward. But I just want to make sure that that's what the request is. Madam Chair, that's correct.

Other board discussion? Mr. Chamberlain.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am with, with you on, on the August preference. I think the more, more spawning opportunity, the better it is for the resource. So, and also for crowding purposes, I think August would be preferable. So I would support August.

I'm just going to get back to this. Why are you asking the board to decide July or August? I would like to understand that because it is— are you not wanting to take heat from the public? Why isn't there a recommendation for this? What's the deal with that?

Madam Chair, Mike Booze, Lower Cook Inlet Sport Fishery Manager. It's a really fair question. The way we submitted this proposal, we really wanted to provide the public the opportunity to choose the season and give input. Unfortunately, that didn't happen the way that we wanted it. We can come forward with a more of a solid recommendation, but as we see it, July or August would be good seasons, lead to sustainable harvest.

It was just more to get a preference for what the users really wanted. There's a diversity of opinions out there and we were just trying to provide that opportunity. Not a fan. Any other discussions? Mr. Swenson.

Well, I could tell you if there's a choice, you know, August starts to get rainy and wet and it's a little colder. July would, would be the greatest month, but I guess when are they done spawning again?

Through the chair to Member Swenson, they begin spawning in early July. The peak is at the end of July and early August, but it does continue through August.

Wow, I didn't actually know that, but I guess from that you had to dig them in September then, huh?

Or later. All right, thank you. Member Carpenter.

Well, a wise man— what a wise man once told me, that if the public doesn't weigh in, the board will make the decision. So I move to amend Proposal 270 to choose August as the month for this particular fishery. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so moved. Which brings the Proposal 270 as amended before the board.

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

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

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 270 as amended.

Zareh. Yes. Chamberlain. Yes. Svenson.

Yes. Wood. Yes. Carlson. Van Dordt.

Yes. Carpenter. Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 271.

Madam Chair, Proposal 271, 5AAC 58.040, East Cook Inlet Razor Clam Sport Fishery Management Plan, and 5AAC 77.519, East Cook Inlet Razor Clam Personal Use Fishery Management Plan. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I move the board take no action on Proposal 271 based on its action on Proposal 270. I second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 271. Proposal 299.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Martin Schuster. I'm the area management biologist for Prince William Sound and North Gulf Coast commercial groundfish and shellfish. Proposal 299. 5AAC 31 new section and 5AAC 55.055 Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan.

Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. If adopted, this proposal would direct the department to develop a comprehensive Prince William Sound shrimp pot management plan and task force. Currently, there is no management plan that regulates both commercial and non-commercial Prince William Prince William Sound shrimp pot fisheries.

The non-commercial fishery is managed through a management plan which establishes the non-commercial guideline harvest level as 60% of the total allowable harvest. The management plan for non-commercial fisheries also includes harvest recording and reporting requirements, a season of April 15 to September 15, and gear allowances of no more than 5 pots per vessel used to take shrimp. Commercial regulations provide for a Prince William Sound commercial shrimp pot fishery if the estimated TAH, or total allowable harvest, in Prince William Sound is more than 110,000 pounds. The commercial GHL is 40% of the estimated TAH. Additionally, no more than 50% of the commercial GHL may be taken from any one statistical area, and there is a triennial rotation of fishing areas.

I'm going to read in some of our background here, and just as a reminder for the board, The refined surplus production model is not present in the original staff comments since the department began work on that recently. The total allowable harvest for Prince William Sound shrimp pot, the fisheries, is estimated using a surplus production model. Model inputs include commercial harvest, non-commercial harvest, and catch per unit effort, or CPUE, from the department shrimp pot survey. Recent work has been carried out by department staff to refine this surplus production model due to concerns with the original model not responding to changes in Prince William Sound shrimp biomass. This recent work was not included in the original staff comments.

The refined surplus production model tracks shrimp biomass in the Sound more accurately. It shows that shrimp went unharvested during the 2010s when productivity was high and that biomass was at times greater than the carrying capacity of the stock. The refined model also shows that TAH was set too high in recent years as the stock came down from that period of very high productivity. Unlike the old model, the refined model sets TAH at a conservative 75% of FMSY, which will help the stock recover when shrimp biomass is low and provide sustainable harvest opportunity when shrimp biomass is high. The department is neutral.

On this proposal. If the board wishes to adopt a new management plan for this fishery, then regulatory language will need to be drafted because the proposal does not contain regulatory language detailing how the fishery would be managed. Madam Chair, thank you. Board discussion? Mr. Carpenter?

Yeah, thank you, Martin. Um, well, I understand the proponents' intent behind this. I think that without bringing something forward to the board in a much more refined manner, it's something that's, at least for me myself, very difficult to wrap my head around right now. I think that the department has developed a new model in regards to both non-commercial and commercial shrimp, and I think that the board will be addressing some of that. I think some of the concerns that the proponents have brought forward with this idea will be addressed.

I just don't think that we're quite here yet. I think creating a task force, I'm not exactly sure that that's the right thing to do. I've been on many task forces in my life, and a lot of times there's not a whole lot. But I do encourage the proponents to work with the department to potentially develop something like this and bring it forward in the future. So for right now, because we have this new model and we're going to make some potential changes to some future proposals.

I can't support it now. Mr. Wood. Yeah, I likewise, but a lot of these proposals often come in from people that, you know, really know this resource well, and I think especially in the case of shrimp, what we'll have before us is probably a combination of everything that's already encompassed in this proposal here as we move forward. I think especially since at the time of submitting proposals rules. And even during staff comments, we didn't— we weren't completely aware of this model that we are now looking at that kind of changes the lay of the land a little bit.

So I do recognize that we do have under 5 AAC 55.055, Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, that there is a— people are asking for it, one written in that says commercial or maybe one that encompasses both. So I see that desire. However, I think in proposals down the road here, we'll be able to encompass some of these thoughts, uh, the backbone of a management proposal that the department's already been using, uh, into something that is somewhat substantive by the end of the day. So for that reason, I'm not going to vote for this, but hopefully there's great things to come.

Other board discussion? Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Prince William Sound Valdez AC and the Whittier AC were in favor of this, and the Anchorage AC and the Mat-Su Valley AC were opposed. Thank you.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, I think I'll go through some of the subsistence review for this particular area of Prince William Sound. Is this stock in a non-subsistence area? Yes, portions are located in the Valdez non-subsistence area.

Is this stock customary and traditionally taken for subsistence? Yes, shrimp has a customary and traditional use finding for the Prince William Sound area outside of the Valdez non-subsistence area. Can a portion of the stock be harvested consistent with sustained yield? Yes, the amount necessary for subsistence has been determined by the board to be 9,000 to 15,000 usable weight. Does this regulation provide opportunity to subsistence users?

I believe it does. Is this necessary to reduce or eliminate other users? I don't believe so at this time. Time. A approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in the additional cost to the department.

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

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Weida? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 299.

Carpenter? No. Zareh? Nope. Carlson-Vandort?

No. Wood? No. Svensson? No.

Chamberlain? No. Motion fails 0-6. Madam Chair. Proposal 300.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Brittany Blain Roth, area management biologist with the Division of Sport Fish for the Prince William Sound and North Gulf Coast areas. Proposal 300, 5 AAC 55.055, Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 300 as the proposer has withdrawn support found in RC 35. I second that and ask for unanimous consent.

Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 300. Proposal 301.

Proposal 301, 5AAC 55.055, Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery management plan. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 301 with substitute language found in RC 58. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has language found in RC 58 in lieu of the original language for 301.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Donnie Arthur and I am the assistant sport fish manager for Prince William Sound. Proposal 300, as amended with substitute language found in RC 58, would create a minimum biomass base threshold for the sport and subsistence fisheries to open at a biomass of at least 20% of carrying capacity or unfished biomass, also referred to as K, which is defined in this amended language. This RC also has substitute language addressing Proposal 305, and under 5 AAC 55.055, Section 3(d), it establishes that non-commercial users may only carry one additional pot on their vessel more than is allowed to be used for the taking of shrimp by regulation or emergency order. This is also addressed under 5 AAC 55.022 and 5 AAC 02.210 to ensure that sport and subsistence regulations are consistent.

Additionally, Section 3 under E in this proposal allows and clarifies the use of shrimp pots to be longlined in the sport fishery, which has been a common practice in the fishery, but it was unclear and if permitted. Lastly, Section 3 under F establishes that crab pots may not be used on a longline in tandem with shrimp pots. The effects of this proposal are that if biomass dips below a biomass of 20% of carrying capacity, referred to as B20, then sport and subsistence fisheries would be closed. Both sport and subsistence fisheries would be open at biomass above B20 and could always harvest 60% of the TAH above this biomass level. Below B20%, the department would have conservation concerns and support a threshold at this commonly used trigger level.

The board could reference RC20 for context of where B20% would fall within the new assessment. All other aspects of this proposal, as amended, would have effects that cannot be measured or predicted, but they improve clarity for users and enforcement. The exception is that non-commercial shrimping opportunity may be reduced in the event that pots are lost or damaged due to the inability to replace those pots by only allowing participants to carry one extra pot. The department is neutral on this allocated proposal. However, with the department's updated stock assessment and method for setting total allowable harvest, the department is supportive of the concept of biomass-based thresholds rather than TAH-based thresholds, as they are more responsive to the data and assessment.

To meet the board's statutory responsibility to subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations will continue to provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest shrimp in Prince William Sound Management Area if the proposal is adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you. Member Carpenter. Yeah, thank you for that, Donny.

I think this, this substitute language does a multitude of things, and I think it kind of follows along the guidelines of the, the new model that the department has incorporated into the management scheme. I think it addresses, number one, Um, it puts a floor in place which, if the estimated biomass falls below the 20th percentile of K, our total carrying capacity, um, there would become a conservation concern at that point. And so I think that it's well defined in the substitute language. This also makes it very clear that, um, Both sport and subsistence users may carry one additional pot outside of the legal limit established by regulation or EO authority. Um, it does clarify, um, in regulation that pots may be operated, um, in a fast— in a long line fashion, which has been a customary practice, quite frankly, for a long time.

And I really don't think that it's ever been clear, but I think this clarifies that. It also talks about the idea that a crab pot may not be fished in the longline that's included with the shrimp pots. This addresses both the sport and the subsistence side of things so that it's clear on both sides. I think that this goes a long way to making— to utilizing the new model that the department is working with now. And so for that reason,.

Clarity to the public and some of these things that have been, you know, a little bit uncertain, I think that I'm very supportive at this time. Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I, from the beginning with this whole evolution of is there a management plan for Prince William Sound shrimp and understanding this shrimp fishery, I really give the department a lot of credit to working with the user groups in particular to educate us on how the shrimp fishery is conducted and why they really thought— why they believe that this new formula will work for everybody, and especially the resource in particular, which I really appreciate.

That, and I think that's reflected in these new numbers, that, that, that really paint a better picture on where we're at in, in the both the commercial and non-commercial fishery. That being said, the allocation part of it, the 60/40, still will remain in place for the time being. But I would go through the allocation criteria that beginning with one, the history of each personal use sport, guided sport, and commercial fishery. This, this RC and this proposal now addresses that, I think, quite equitably. And actually keeps it the historical numbers, the number of residents and nonresidents who have participated in this fishery in the past and the number of residents and nonresidents who can reasonably expect to participate in the future.

I think with these numbers, all user groups will be able to participate somewhat unencumbered unless there's some major problems down the road. And, and this plan kind of pulls that together to make sure that that doesn't happen at that B-20, B-30 area. The important importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain fish for personal and family consumption. I mean, since Prince William Sound seems to be the only ocean access for most of the largest population of Alaska, I think it's really important that, that this model and the management plan reflect that the amount of use that this gets and trying to maintain that use through over time. Especially as we've seen that a lot of the— this is a bit of different fishery.

The commercial fishery has a lot of, a lot of marketer marketing due to small catcher-seller operators. And so the importance of getting food to everybody is important, but having it available, the availability of alternative fisheries. I mean, we can't lose this one, the shrimp fishery right here in Prince William Sound. The importance of each fishery to the economy of the state. Very important in this specific area to all, all towns and throughout the coastal— or through Alaska.

The importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located. Once again, it's just another one of those fisheries that can fit in between others to keep fishermen going over time. So it's important that, you know, this can happen over a few weeks or a month or two instead of just boom. 5 Days, and the importance of each fishery for providing recreational opportunities for residents and non-residents, which clearly this does with the access through Valdez, Whittier, and Cordova. So with that said, I figured I just covered that to be thorough.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Um, question. First of all, just in reading the language, and this is either for the department or member Carpenter, whomever, this, the subsistence and the sport gear is identical, and is that consistent with previous reg?

Madam Chair, yes, as written in this amendment, sport and subsistence gear would be identical, and it's been pretty consistent with the exception it was unclear in the sport fishery whether pots could be longline, and that just clears this up. Understood. And then with respect to B20, um, that says that neither of these fisheries could be opened beneath that threshold. But what about the reverse in terms of restricting the fisheries? Is that done by EO?

If you're approaching B20, um, let's just say, or have concerns around that number, would the sport fishery and the subsistence fishery be restricted simultaneously to the same level, or how would the department choose to handle that? Madam Chair, great question. Following the non-commercial shrimp management plan, and to date management has been identical for those two fisheries, sport and subsistence, as they are management under that management plan. And we use EO authority primarily to this point. We've used pot limits to do so, but have other options that we are authorized to use, such as time and area.

If we got to those levels, we would have to explore the tools that we do have and are authorized to use under our authority. And, you know, we would recognize that there is a state subsistence priority in those actions. Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Swenson.

So as I read this, they can start fishing for shrimp then on April 15th.

Through the chair, Board Member Swenson, as written in this proposal and the current management plan coming into this meeting, the opening date was— is April 15th. There is a proposal that the board will address later to alter that date, but As it stands, it's— the opening date is April 15th. Okay, thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals, and I wanted to thank the department for putting in the graph in RC20 because I think it was very helpful for me to understand this part of the component to the proposal. So approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for private person or participate in approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department.

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

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 301 as amended.

Wood? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Zareh?

Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Svenson? Yes.

Carlson-Vandork? Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal number 302.

Madam Chair, Proposal 302, 5AAC 31.214, Shrimp Pot Guideline Harvest Level for Registration Area E. Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 302 as the proponent has withdrawn support found in RC 50. Second that. Now ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 302.

Proposal number 303.

Madam Chair, Proposal 303, 5AAC 31.214, shrimp pot guideline harvest level for Registration Area E. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, move the board adopt Proposal 303 with substitute language found in RC 27. Second that and ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board has before it the language found in RC 27 in lieu of the original language in 303. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, the substitute language in RC 27 changes the 110,000-pound threshold to open a commercial fishery to a biological threshold set at 40% of the carrying capacity of the Prince William Sound shrimp stock, commonly called B40. In 2025, B40 equates to a shrimp biomass of approximately 60,000 pounds. If adopted, this proposal would align the commercial threshold with the most recent assessment data used by the department for shrimp in Prince William Sound. If biomass fell below B40, the commercial fishery would be closed. Additionally, using a biomass threshold at B40 instead of a static value in pounds would allow the threshold to respond to changes in stock status as estimated by the department.

The department was originally opposed to this proposal as published, However, recent work, as outlined previously, on refining our surplus production model and the RC modifying this proposal has changed the department's position. The department now supports the use of biomass-based triggers and is neutral on the allocative aspects of this proposal. Madam Chair. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the department.

Once again, we're talking about, you know, this proposal specifically talks about the commercial aspects and the thresholds surrounding opening the commercial fishery.

This also uses the table found in RC 20, which demonstrates where B40 is. I think this is, in my opinion, a more conservative approach, and I think it's a beneficial point on the K model in regards to total carrying capacity when the commercial fishery should open. And so for those reasons, I am very supportive.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, I as well. I agree completely with Member Carpenter.

Having run through this multiple times now with different users and the department, I feel really confident that this is a— this provides plenty of conservativeness to this management of the commercial fishery to protect it through for all user groups throughout the inlet. So I'm very supportive of it.

Thank you. I—. To Member Carpenter, I was just kind of curious why the selection of B40 versus B50 and looking at our C20 was the decision point. I'm not opposed to what's presented, I just appreciate a little explanation there.

Thank you for the question. I think the reason that I chose B40 was that if you look at B50, that's basically— and the department can correct me if I'm wrong because I got a lot of things going through my head right now— but B50 For example, which the old threshold used to be based on 100% of the old model. B50 would also sort of represent that. I believe that B40 represents a little bit more of a conservative approach, and so I felt that over time that the more conservative approach, even though for a little bit of foregone harvest could potentially take place on the commercial fishery, most of the people that came up during public testimony and Committee of the Whole all felt that B-40 generally represented something that they could live with, and so that's basically the reason. Thank you for that.

Any additional discussion?

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The original proposal without the RC-27 was supported by the Central Peninsula AC and the Copper River Prince William Sound AC and opposed by the Anchorage AC and the Prince William Sound, Valdez AC. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm going to be supportive of this. I think that, you know, sort of recalibrating this fishery to this new model, I think makes good sense. Clearly the prior model wasn't, wasn't working well any longer. So I will be supportive of the proposal. Any additional discussion?

Mr. Carpenter? Yeah, I'd just like to maybe ask Mr. Bowers for the record that if the board does pass this and adopts B-40, what the department's intent would be specific to the upcoming season, because the regulatory language wouldn't really go into effect till around July. If you just might clarify that for the public. Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, that's a good question, Mr. Carpenter. So I think as everyone is aware, we issued an announcement earlier this year closing the commercial fishery based on the, the management plan that existed prior to the action you just took or are contemplating taking here.

If this proposal is adopted, the commercial fishery could open in 2024 or 2025 using this, this new stock assessment. And so we, we do have the ability to, to use our emergency order for time and area to open the fishery. And I think given that our new stock assessment and the language that you're considering adopting here would provide for a sustained yield opportunity that would otherwise be foregone. We would take that action and open the fishery. Yeah, thank you for saying that.

I just kind of wanted to give the public a little understanding if the possibility exists. Ultimately, it's the decision of the department, the commissioner, whether to do that, but thank you for that consideration. Um, I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals for, uh, this particular area. Uh, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department, not I call the question. Question's been called.

Errors and omissions. Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Miss Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 303 as amended. Chamberlain?

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

Svenson? Yes. Carpenter? Yes. Wood?

Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair. Proposal 304.

Madam Chair, Proposal 304, 5AAC 55.055, Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, and 5AAC 55.022, General Provisions for Seasons, Bag, Possession, and Size Limits and Methods and Means for the Prince William Sound Area, and 55AAC 31.210, Shrimp Pot Fishing Seasons for Registration Area E. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, if adopted, this would delay Prince William Sound non-commercial and commercial shrimp pot fisheries by 2 weeks, from April 15th to May 1st. The department has conducted port sampling from the commercial shrimp fishery during the last 4 seasons. Port sampling harvest data indicate that in late April, 36% of female shrimp are egg-bearing. By May 1st, the percentage of egg-bearing females in the harvest goes down to approximately 5%. In the October Department shrimp pot survey, the percentage of females that are egg-bearing is 94%.

The department is neutral on this proposal. If adopted, the board may wish to consider whether regulations continue to provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest shrimp for subsistence. Madam Chair, thanks for discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, thanks for that.

I think we heard plenty of testimony in the public specific to this proposal. I think from my recollection that there was plenty of support, quite frankly, to move the season from April 15th to May 1st across the board for all user groups.

You know, I understand the department in their comments talks about you know, very small indicators suggesting that there's females bearing eggs. But from my own personal experience, I do think that that window in mid-August or mid-April till May is an important time to get as many of those females to let go of those eggs before harvest takes place. And so considering some of the things we've done in other areas around the state, I think this is very consistent. I don't think that changing the season's season date for all user groups necessarily is going to impede anyone's ability to provide for themselves because the season is quite long in Prince William Sound. So for that reason, I'm going to be supportive.

Mr. Wood. Yeah, boy, this has been the year of the rockfish and the shrimp. What an education. And the shrimp are Fascinating, and we've learned so much about their life cycle, life history, and at this point, if it's not well known, we should all be aware that when they have their eggs and when they're losing them. It's different area to area, it seems, from Southeast to Prince William Sound, but from all evidence, it shows that to be the most conservative to start harvesting these, May 1st would be a much better move.

So I'm fully supportive of that, and long live the shrimp. Mr. Swanson. I am also very supportive of this because of what we've gone through lengthy about the eggs and so on. So I think it's a must that we support this. Thank you.

I will also be supportive. It's consistent with the votes that I've taken on shrimp management plans. Around the state. And I agree with the sentiments, comments of my colleagues here at this table. Additional board discussion?

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Prince William Sound Valdez AC and the Whittier AC were in favor of this, and the Anchorage AC and the Copper River Prince William Sound AC were opposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ziray.

You just helped remind me that I also saw RC54 come in and the Fairbanks was also in support of this proposal. Mr. Carpenter, thank you. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. And I'd call the question.

Question's been called. Errors and omissions.

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

No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain McGrath? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 304. Carpenter? Yes. Zareh?

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

Svenson? Yes. Chamberlain? Yes. Motion carries 6-0, Madam Chair.

Proposal 305. Madam Chair, Proposal 305, 5AAC 55.055, Prince William Sound Non-Commercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Madam Chair? Madam Chair, move the board take no action on Proposal 305 based on board action on Proposal 301. I second that.

And ask for unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, the board will take no action on Proposal 305. Proposal 306. Madam Chair, Proposal 306, 5AAC 31.245, reporting requirements for Registration Area E. Madam Chair. Move to adopt.

Second. Staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would require participants in the commercial shrimp pot fishery to provide daily reports by statistical area on shrimp harvest and effort. In current regulation, reporting requirements include mandatory call-ins no earlier than 24 hours before beginning a trip and mandatory call-ins before landing shrimp, as well as logbooks. As outlined above, the department currently uses call-in data for in-season management of this fishery. The department also has the authority to require daily call-ins by emergency order when the GHL is low enough to justify this increased resolution for harvest data. The department will require daily call-ins when necessary.

The department is opposed to this proposal. Department staff can manage to the GHL at all levels of effort under current regulations. Madam Chair, thank you for discussion. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I tend to agree with the department's assessment on this. I, I applaud the people, the proponent, for bringing this idea forward, but I think that the reporting requirements that are established in the commercial fishery right now seem to be be adequate. I don't know that creating daily reporting is going to necessarily keep the department from managing to the GHLs. And so for those reasons, I just— I'm not going to support it at this time. Mr. Wood, at the pace of this fishery, I think such reporting isn't necessary yet.

But I do, as one member or somebody pointed out, the public, that it is an opportunity to modernize. It's clear the department is modernizing some of their ways of reporting. Reporting, which is great, totally applaud that, but I don't think this is necessary right now because it's— the reporting requirements are already adequate. So I'll be opposing. Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add that under AS 16-05050(a)(4), you know, the commissioner has been granted the authority by the legislature to collect, classify, and disseminate statistics, data, and information that we use to promote sustained yield. And so the department already has broad authority to collect data and require reporting that's needed for management. So thank you. Thank you.

Other board discussion? I concur with the comments of my colleagues here at the table. Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery. Approval of this proposal The proposal is expected to result in additional cost to the department due to more staff time devoted to compiling daily call-in information. And I call the question.

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

No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair.

Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 306. Wood.

No. Carlson VanDort. No. Zareh. No.

Chamberlain. No. Carpenter. No. Svensson.

No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 307. Proposal 307, 5AAC55.055, Prince William Sound Noncommercial Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Madam Chair.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Proposal 307 would change the season opening time for the Prince William Sound noncommercial shrimp fishery by 8 hours from 12:01 a.m. To 8 a.m.

On April 15th. Gear conflict could increase as the start time for both the non-commercial and commercial shrimp fisheries would align, and congestion at boat harbor launches may increase. Since 2010, less than 1% of the total season harvest occurs on April 15th on average, and it is unlikely that much of that harvest occurs from pots set before 8:00 AM. The Department is neutral on this proposal but does not have conservation concerns with the current or proposed start time for the non-commercial shrimp fishery. To meet the board's statutory responsibility to subsistence law, it should consider whether subsistence regulations will continue to provide for reasonable opportunity.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Mr. Carpenter. Thank you.

I thought about this one a little bit. I just don't think that an 8-hour time window appears that— I just don't see that there's a real relative reason to do it at this time. When the season opens in May, there's plenty of daylight. People have been utilizing the timeframes that have been in place for a long time. And so, you know, for those reasons, you know, when you consider the idea about the board's statutory responsibility and subsistence law, I don't think that 8 hours is going to be anything that is going to eliminate subsistence opportunity because the season is very long in Prince William Sound.

So for those reasons, I'm not going to support it.

Yeah, thanks. In my mind, I was just trying to picture this mad dash to cork each other off in the Prince William Sound shrimp fishery. I don't think there's a problem with this. I honestly, the most of the people that I know that do this are like skiers and they stay up all night long and they would go down there to set some pots actually and then go skiing. And so it's probably better to let the people that are less experienced with this to set their pots and then let the the pros set around them.

No offense, but the commercial. So I don't have a problem with where it's at right now. And so I'm inclined to be no.

Other board discussion? Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Copper River Prince William Sound AC and the Prince William Sound Valdez AC were in favor and the Anchorage AC was opposed. Thank you.

Any other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional cost to the department.

And I call the question. Question's been called. There is no motions. Director Payton? No, Madam Chair.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 307.

Wood? No. Chamberlain? No. Ziray?

No. Carpenter? No. Svensson? No.

Carlson-Vandork? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 308.

Madam Chair, apologies, one moment.

Madam Chair, apologies. Proposal 308. Loafle shrimp pot gear for registration area E5AAC 31.223. Madam Chair, move to adopt. Again, staff comments, please.

Madam Chair, this proposal would reduce the maximum pot limit in Prince William Sound commercial shrimp pot fishery from 100 pots to 25 pots. Current regulations include a pot limit of no more than 100 shrimp pots. When deciding the pot limit, the department considers the total number of registered vessels, estimated catch per unit effort, or CPUE, and the magnitude of the GHL. If this proposal were adopted, the maximum pot limit would be reduced to 25 pots, and the length of the fishery could increase during times of high shrimp abundance when the pot limit would be set higher under current regulations, or conversely, under years with low participation The fishery could proceed at a slower pace.

The department is neutral on this proposal. Pot limits have ranged from 20 to 60 pots per vessel during the Prince William Sound commercial shrimp fishery. The department has the authority to set the pot limit at low levels if increased effort is expected. Madam Chair, thank you. More discussion?

Mr. Wood? Yeah, thank you. Since this is an open access fishery, I think it's important for the department to have maybe a higher limit than normal to put towards it if they feel it was necessary. So I'm not inclined to reduce that limit, thus taking that tool away from them. So I'm okay with keeping it at 100 and let department use their discretion on how many pots should be used year to year.

Mr. Ziray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I don't see the need for this proposal. The Copper River Prince William Sound AC and the Prince William Sound Valdez AC and the Whittier AC were all opposed to this. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm not going to be supportive either. Like I said, or like other members have said, I heard loud and clear, particularly in Committee of the Whole, that the department already has the authority to do this, to reduce those pot limits. That is, I'm not quite sure what the benefit of 25 pots are specifically, so I will not be supportive. Mr. Carpenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with.

Other board comments? Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. There is an omission.

Director Bowers? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain Brown?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 308. Carpenter? No.

Zareh? Nope. Carlson-Vandort? No. Wood?

No. Svenson? No. Chamberlain? No.

Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal number 309. Madam Chair, for the record, Nat Nichols. I'm the area manager for commercial shellfish and groundfish fisheries in the Kodiak, Chignik, and South Alaska Peninsula areas. Proposal 309, 5AAC 31.510, fishing seasons for Registration Area J.

Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal is seeking to change dates for the registration area J commercial shrimp fishery from June 1 through February 28 to April 1 through December 31st. We'll note that this season would remain 9 months in length but would be shifted 2 months earlier in the season.

The current season dates have been in place since the early 1970s and are designed to ensure maximum egg release by protecting egg-bearing females immediately before and during egg hatch, which occurs in the spring. I'll also note that this is a different type of shrimp fishery than the other ones that we're discussing at this meeting. In Area J, the targeted shrimp species are typically pink shrimp and side stripe shrimp, and the gear type is trawl gear as opposed to pot gear. Minimal shrimp fishing effort occurs during the current 9-month-long season. The department's opposed to this proposal.

Area J shrimp stocks have continued to be at low abundance relative to historical levels despite decades of little or no commercial harvest. There is no evidence to suggest that the reproductive biology of Area J shrimp stocks has changed in such a way that the current March through May closure is no longer appropriate or warranted. The current 9-month-long season provides opportunity for commercial shrimp harvest while still protecting shrimp stocks during a time of known vulnerability, Madam Chair. Has there been any recent surveys or any surveys within the last 20, 30 years about what the egg capacity is of those shrimp and when? Madam Chair, not specifically designed to look at the egg capacity, but we historically had a small mesh survey that we conducted every year throughout the Gulf from Kodiak out through the South Peninsula.

As the fisheries went away, we pulled that survey back because the survey is expensive and was no longer supporting a fishery. We do maintain two index sites, so we survey every year still in Pavlov Bay in South Peninsula and in Chiniak Bay near Kodiak. So we do maintain a small time series there annually. And then as funding allows, we've done larger surveys in the Shelikhof Strait area. I don't— I think the last one we did was probably 5 years ago.

Okay, thank you. And thank you. Yeah, capacity wasn't one of as many as presence of. So thanks, Member Wood. With these pink and side stripe shrimp, is the, is the time where they release their eggs about the same as all the others that we've talked about?

Through the chair, I will admit that I am out of my depth as a shrimp manager because I manage a shrimp fishery that doesn't exist functionally. I know some things about my shrimp species. I know very little about spot shrimp. Follow-up. All right, thanks.

Well, looking at that Table 309-1 on page 133, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of vessels or participants in this. I mean, to the point where it's confidential, there's so few people, few people, not a huge amount of participation. So Wait and hear what others have to say. [Speaker] So back to my question. I may have missed it, but in those surveys that the department, or those index surveys that you do, and when funds allow in the Shellacoff, are you finding the presence of eggs consistent with the current closure periods?

I.e., we're not seeing any evidence that that time is shifting.

Madam Chair, we survey in the fall. That is, that is typically when we do our trawl survey for shrimp in the, in September through September-ish. So that's the time of year when we wouldn't expect to see a lot of egged up females. But nothing that we've seen as far as size compositions or sex compositions in our trawl survey data or in the catch sampling we've done from the limited amount of commercial fisheries indicates that anything with the sex composition or size of the shrimp has changed relative to historical time series. And from your face, I can tell I'm not answering the question.

No, you are, but you're generating more questions. Lucky you. So why are you surveying in the fall? What's the purpose of that time frame?

That is, that is, well, for one, that is when we've always done it. And in maintaining historical time series, it's good to continue surveying when you've always done your survey. I do not know why our survey was designed to be in the fall, and if that is different than other areas in the state. Forrest. Thanks.

Thanks, Madam Chair. You know, you know, some of what you're hearing here is kind of a reflection of what you see in Table 309-1 in RC2. You know, this, this fishery in Kodiak was kind of at its peak in the 1960s and 1970s and then rapidly declined in the '80s and Essentially, there's been little to no harvest since the mid-1980s, so, and we haven't seen signs of stock recovery. So a lot of the, you know, the historical knowledge of how our management was developed for this lies in the distant past. But, you know, I think If you look at our, what we do in Southeast Alaska with shrimp surveys, we survey in the fall.

So we're trying to get a look at what post-spawning abundance looks like. You know, as we've talked about, egg releases in the spring, and that's what, you know, this current season in Kodiak beginning in June is, is designed to avoid that period when they're egg-bearing. So, as Mr. Nichols says, we haven't seen any indication that the biology of the stock has changed that might have shifted spawn timing. So we think the current season is appropriate.

But Given that there really isn't a fishery, I just don't know how much impact moving a season date would have right now. Yeah, there isn't a fishery, and the reason there isn't a fishery is because it was, in my opinion, extremely mismanaged. And that's not an indictment on anybody sitting here right now, but it is nonetheless. And so I guess I'm just curious, like, for making— you don't have any evidence indicating that there is a shift in the biology, but then we're not really looking for that either. So I mean, it just begs the question, because somebody's asking to go fishing a couple months earlier.

I'm not necessarily inclined to agree with that, but I think that the basis for denying it is, is squishy at best based on what I've heard. Mr. Swenson. Well, I would think that, you know, I know, I know it's not been open, but I think it would be smart to stick to what it is, and that's the June 1st to do save the eggs in those shrimp. So I'm going to say no to this.

Mr. Wood, sorry. Thanks. Yeah, we've used May 1st, May 15th throughout the state. Might be different out there, but I'm inclined to just leave it where it's at June 1st. Rather than bump it back to April 1st.

I'm a no.

Any other board discussion? Mr. DesRae? The only AC comment was Kodiak AC, and they were opposed. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter?

Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. I don't know if there's much subsistence harvest going on. Director Wieda? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking?

No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraw? No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 309.

Svenson? No. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? No. Carlson-Vandoorp? No.

Zarey? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 310. Madam Chair, Proposal 310, 58 AC 31.210, Shrimp Pot Fishing Seasons for Registration Area A. Madam Chair.

Move to adopt. Second.

Staff comments, please. Madam Chair, this proposal would remove the triennial area rotation in the Prince William Sound commercial shrimp pot fishery and instead open all areas annually with separate guideline harvest levels based on shrimp pot survey CPUE. Current regulations require a triennial rotation between fishing areas. The commercial fishery is managed so that no more than 50% of the GHL, or guideline harvest level, may be taken from any one statistical area. The triennial rotation was established to provide time for the shrimp stock in each area to recover from commercial harvest pressure between fishing seasons, and also to simplify management in a commercial fishery with very small GHLs.

Another benefit of the rotation is to minimize overlap between user groups in some years. The department is opposed to this proposal. The Prince William Sound cert— shrimp survey is prosecuted in each of the 3 commercial areas. While a GHL could be assigned to each area based on survey CPUE or other factors, the survey would need to be restructured to provide abundance estimates for each area individually. Madam Chair.

Mr. Carpenter and then Mr. Wood. Yeah, thank you. I thought about this one for a long time. And I tried to figure out a way with my understanding of Prince William Sound how to do something different potentially, and I could not figure out a way to do it. Um, the GHLs that the department uses in these three different commercial areas are quite different, and I think that it's important to keep that consistency, at least right now, especially when we're using this new model.

Maybe over time, once this new model is adopted and we can look at, you know, the productivity in some of these different areas. The other thing is, is that the survey areas, I believe there's only like 9 of them that they use, maybe it's 11, I can't remember the exact number.

It would make it hard and the pressure that could be put on some of these areas might not be warranted right now to break this up.

So I understand the concern. I understand why the proposal was brought forward. I just don't think that given the timeframe that we're under right now, that it's probably appropriate to do it at this time.

I agree with Member Carpenter's comments. We've shaken things up enough here. Let's just leave this in place in order so we can keep managing it the way— with some consistency. I would like to say that with the, with the commercial, with the rotation and the commercial harvest being set at 40%, it does spread it around. It begs the question about the, the more accessible areas like Whittier that get hit harder.

And I think it's potentially down the road that that may need to be looked at because of the 60/40 split. There's a higher impact. Well, it it's more directed in certain areas. So maybe to spread it out may be necessary. But if there were no areas and you weren't relegated to go one way, it may encourage people just to all go to that same area, both commercial and non-commercial.

So that wouldn't be a good thing either. So for now, I think leave it the way it is and come back in 3 years and see how it's working. Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you, Madam Chair. I spoke extensively with the user groups on this one, trying to find, you know, and the one thing I I found is nobody's really happy with the 3-area rotation, but the alternatives to the 3-area rotation that are being floated around tend to open bigger cans of worms than the ones we're closing.

And I definitely— like, I chewed on this one a lot trying to think of ways and look at avenues of how we could address this, but I, I think there needs to be a much more comprehensive, uh, comprehensive look at what the alternatives and how to structure them would be, uh, to make sure we're not doing unintended damage, causing, uh, conflicts between user groups and, uh, over or under harvesting, uh, any particular areas. So with that I'd love to look at this more, but I don't think this one is ripe at this time, so I'll be voting no.

Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also reference my subsistence review from prior proposals. Approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct costs for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal would result in an additional cost to the department to restructure the Prince William Sound A survey to provide more annual GHLs in each individual area, and I would call the question. Question's been called.

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

Director Rita? No, Madam Chair. Ms. Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff?

No, Madam Chair. Director Nelson, please call the roll. Final action on Proposal 310. Wood? No.

Carlson-Vandort? No. Zarey? No. Chamberlain?

No. Carpenter? No. Svenson? No.

Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair. Proposal 311.

Madam Chair, Proposal 311, 5AAC 31.210, Shrimp Pot Fishing Seasons for Registration Area E. Move to adopt. Second. Staff comments, please. This proposal would allow vessels registered to commercially fish in the Prince William Sound Shrimp Pot Fishery to also operate as tenders in the Prince William Sound Fishery. Under statewide regulations, a vessel used to tender shrimp may not have shrimp gear or equipment on board and may not be used to fish for shrimp.

The pace of the Prince William Sound shrimp pot fishery could increase if this proposal were adopted, resulting in a shorter season with lower pot limits. This could also increase participation by allowing smaller vessels to prosecute the fishery. The department is neutral on this proposal. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Board discussion? Mr. Wood.

Well, there was a fair bit of public testimony on this, and I think there was— and they have given it as much thought, way more thought than we have had to. And for most everybody, it came out to no, this isn't going to help. And in fact, it might increase already a small pot fishery. And I think right now we'll just keep it to where it's at. And so with all the new changes, I think we'll just leave it where it is.

And I'm a no on this. Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Copper River Prince William Sound AC was in favor of this, and the Prince William Sound Valdez AC, the Whittier AC, and the Fairbanks AC were all opposed.

Other board discussion? Mr. Carpenter. Yeah, this particular proposal is interesting to me, but considering the public testimony, I'm not sure that I can support it at this time. I do understand why the proposal was brought forward. This does help with efficiency, but it really comes down to there's some people that are involved in the commercial fishery that operate at a much slower pace than others.

And so I think this proposal directly is in conflict with both of them. So I guess at this time I won't be able to support it. Other board discussion? I agree with my colleagues. You know, what I heard in Committee of the Whole particularly was that there was a significant concern for increased fishing pressure pressure, and I won't be supportive at this time for some of the other reasons that we've heard already.

Mr. Carpenter, approval of this proposal is not expected to result in additional direct cost for a private person to participate in the fishery, and approval of this proposal is not expected to result in any additional cost to the department. I call the question. Question's been called. Errors and omissions? Um, Director Bowers?

No, Madam Chair. Miss Brooking? No, Madam Chair. Captain DeGraaff? No, Madam Chair.

Director Nelson, call the roll, please. Final action on Proposal 311. Wood? No. Chamberlain?

No. Ziray? Nope. Carpenter? No.

Svenson? No. Carlson-Vandort? No. Motion fails 0-6, Madam Chair.

All right. Well, that concludes deliberations on Group 2. So tomorrow morning we will begin the day with Committee of the Whole Group 3. And just for folks following along, Group 3 is Kenai River Late Run King Salmon Stock of Concern Management Plan, Kwijak River Special Harvest Area. And Kodiak salmon and herring.

There are 5 proposals in that group. I expect we will have some good discussion tomorrow morning and we will begin at 9:00 a.m. We will see you tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. for Committee of the Whole. And if there is substitute language, let's try and get those RCs in by 8:30 at the very latest. And members of the public, RCs in by 8:30 too, please. Thank you.

Colton, please report to the front. Colton, paging Colton.