NPFMC 280 Day 4 - October 11, 2026

Good morning. Testing.

Morning, we can hear you just clear and fine.

Thank you.

Hey, this is Josh. Can I do a test too?

Good morning, Josh. We can hear you. Thank you. Morning.

Good morning, everyone. So we are beginning our day with our staff presentation on D3. We have been quite ahead of schedule this meeting and do anticipate getting through staff tasking unless something unanticipated happens with the amount of public testimony that we get. Um, but, uh, we'll begin with D3, and we'll just try to keep the public updated as far as our timing throughout the day.

Ms. Marinan.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the council, Sarah Marinan, council staff. Um, this is the D3 agenda item. Uh, for the staff report, we're going to present an expanded discussion paper. Along with me for this staff presentation is Dr. Henderson, and I'll let her introduce herself.

Good morning, my name is Liz Henderson. I am from the NIMS Alaska Regional Office Sustainable Fisheries Division, and I will be discussing the two PNOL proposed items from the October 2025 motion and one clarification. Thank you.

So we also have a few NMFS staff as support for backup questions. So we have Doug Duncan, who's in the room. We have Alex Perry online from OLE, and Josh Keeton from the Alaska Region online as well for questions. So just to let you know that. So this is an expanded discussion paper on the Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ Individual Fishing Quota and Community and Quota Entity program, looking at adjustments to these programs.

There's a short history of action here in the paper. So in December 2024, the AP and the Council received a comprehensive program review for the halibut and sablefish IFQ program. After looking at that program review, the Council tasked a discussion paper covering a number of topics. Related to changes in the program, the IFQ program, the CQE program, looking at some possible changes to beneficiary requirements. After receiving that discussion paper, the council tasked this expanded discussion paper.

That was in October of last year. So that— this paper retains 4 of the proposals from the original discussion paper and added 5 additional items. So at this meeting, we're looking at the expanded discussion paper. The 9 proposed items from the council's October 2025 motion have been reorganized and renumbered a bit for this paper. We've grouped them together as transfer eligibility certificate requirement topics, CQE operation topics, and unload landing issues.

So the first 3 topics fall under transfer eligibility certificate requirements. These 3 topics were all from the last discussion paper, so I'm really going to touch on them at a very high level here. This includes counting tendering time towards the 150-day sea time requirement, looking at minimum age requirements for holding commercial quota, and considering waiving the TCE requirements for individuals fishing a CQE's IFQ.

These are the next 4 proposed items, and they're related— they're all related to CQEs specifically. The first topic is improving CQE in-season management of IFQ, increasing or removing CQE-specific sablefish vessel caps in the Aleutian Islands, increasing or removing the individual quota share use caps for CQEs, and the 7th item is more of a clarification, not a proposal, on whether CQEs in the Aleutian Islands can hold federal processing permits.

And then the final two topics are related to unload landing issues. These are both new for this discussion paper. They're looking at waiving the prior notice of landing and restricted unload hours for small IFQ deliveries. And number 9 would expand the designated unload areas for tenders receiving IFQ or CQE halibut or sablefish. And we're going to go through each of these proposals in more detail, so give you a clearer understanding of what each one does as we walk through the proposals.

This is just a visual for the different proposals that we have. Some of these apply exclusively to Gulf of Alaska or Aleutian Islands CQEs or all the CQEs, and some would apply to all halibut and sablefish quota shareholders. So we make this distinction as we walk through each proposal, but you can circle back to this slide if you need a visual of how they might apply.

Just a couple slides on background here to ensure we're all on the same page. So the IFQ program was implemented in 1995 for fixed gear halibut and sablefish commercial fisheries off Alaska. Quota share is issued for a species and regulatory area. Each year, those quota share units translate into fishable IFQ pounds based off of the tax set for that species. In order to buy quota share or lease IFQ, a person must be issued a Transfer Eligibility Certificate, a TEC, and this is done by meeting eligibility requirements.

So there are, there's a requirement for 150 or more days of experience working as part of a harvesting crew in any U.S. commercial fishery. And submitting the application attesting to this eligibility. Harvesting is defined as working, work directly related to catching and retaining of fish. So this supports the IFQ program's goals of maintaining an owner-operated fleet. Owner-on-board requirements for IFQ holders are part of the program with some limited exceptions.

There's a background section in the paper, Section 2.2, describing the Community Quota Entity Program implemented in 2004 in response to concerns about outmigration of quota from small Gulf of Alaska coastal communities. It allows certain small coastal communities in the Gulf and the Aleutian Islands to form nonprofit groups and participate in the IFQ program by purchasing halibut and sablefish quota share. Um, in the final motion establishing the CQE program, the council established 3 performance standards that, although not required by regulations, were intended as goals and have often been circled back to thinking about the intent of the program. So I just wanted to highlight that part of those performance standards were maximize the benefit from use of community IFQ for crew members that are community residents, ensure that benefits are equitably distributed throughout the community, and ensure that the quota share IFQ allocated to an eligible community entity would not be held and unfished. This table demonstrates that of the 46 eligible communities, 9 have formed— have both formed CQEs and purchased halibut and/or sablefish quota share.

You can also see in Figure 1 of the paper that in 2026, 7 of the 9 of these groups acquired quota share in this year after recent years of relative stable holdings. So that was an item to note. A few of the groups have recently established.

Miss Marinan, we have a question. Miss Kimball. Thank you, Miss Marinan. I have, I have not looked ahead to see if you're going to cover this, so I'll just ask now, but I was using this table to look at the total number of holdings, and so is this the appropriate table if these are as of 2026, and that means I'm looking at the cumulative holdings by CQEs. And so for 2C, it's less than 1% if I add up those percentages.

For 3A, it's less than 1%, and for 3B, it's less than 1%, and then the elutions is a different situation. Is that how I use this table? Uh, through the chair, Ms. Kimball, yes, you can use this table that way to think about the the total holdings. And I think we will talk about it a bit more under the proposal for use caps for groups, but I, I don't, I don't bring this table up again. So this is the table I would look to to think about that.

And the overall cap through the chair is for each of those areas is actually 21% through the chair. That's right. Thank you.

Okay, so the first group of topics, again, these have been covered before, so I'm going to try to be pretty high level here. But the first proposed item is relating to tendering time for TCE eligibility.

So the proposal is to allow tendering to count towards the sea days that we just discussed. This topic came up as a result of the IFQ program review, and at that time tendering time was also being discussed in relation to the crab rationalization program to count towards active participation time. To be eligible for a TCE in the fishery, as, as we just discussed, you need to meet the 150 days of sea time in a harvesting crew. Because tendering is transporting unprocessed fish or shellfish from a vessel to a processor, it doesn't qualify for sea days currently in the IFQ program. Tendering occurs both off Alaska, which we have some stats in the paper showing some of that participation.

It also occurs elsewhere in the U.S. So inclusion of tendering experience could expand the pool of people eligible to buy quota share. It could provide opportunities for younger people to gain experience in the fishing industry and then buy in with, with quota share.

There's one more distinction we're making here in this section. Table 5 shows some of the differences for current and proposed regulatory changes in the crab rationalization program and the IFQ program in terms of whether what qualifies for a TCE. There's two different scopes, whether tendering qualifies, and then is the harvesting and processing that qualifies, is it off Alaska or off the U.S. based on the language and the regulations. So there's already a difference here in scope within the crab program. If the Council moves this action forward, it may wish to consider aligning the scope of tendering eligibility with the scope of harvesting eligibility within the IFQ program.

So right now, the scope for what would qualify for harvesting activity is any U.S. commercial fishery. What's being looked at here for tendering is off of Alaska. Aligning these may reduce some future confusion and, and create some internal consistency within the IFQ program if the council moves forward looking at this proposal.

Okay, the next proposed item is looking at minimum age for purchasing quota share.

NMFS Restricted Access Management Program, RAM, has received transfer eligibility certificates from very young fishermen in the past. So in 2022, NMFS established an interim policy that set a minimum age for issuance of a TC at 18 years old. During the program review, there was some discussion as to whether to establish a minimum age in regulation, and so far public testimony has highlighted disparate views on if setting an age is necessary, and if so, what age would be appropriate. NIMS prefers consistency and clear regulations to promote compliance and ease of understanding to improve enforceability. Section 3.2 includes a list of responsibilities for the quota share IFQ holders, things like complying with reporting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, ensuring that they pay cost recovery fees.

In the event of a violation, miners would be expected, would they would be exposed to potential liability for civil penalties and permit sanctions. There's a table in the paper that shows age requirements and how they vary between state and federal labor laws. Um, so NIMS recommends initiating an action to establish minimum age and regulation to be eligible to receive IFQ or quota buy transfer.

Okay, the third proposed item is looking at TC requirements for CQE residents.

So a reminder that this proposal would waive TCE requirements, so the harvesting C days that we just discussed, specifically for individuals harvesting IFQ from CQE-held quota share. And there was some testimony during the IFQ program review that provided, that highlighted an interest in this opportunity. Right now eligible residents lease IFQ from the CQE, so currently they must have a TCE as the IFQ permit would be leased in their names. And leasing is an official transfer that goes through NIMS RAM Division. Residents of ADAC are an exception to this.

There are no TCE requirements to lease IFQ from the ADAC CQE.

Um, one of the drivers across the board for some of the proposed actions is related to, um, encouraging prosecution rates within the CQEs. Um, an underlying objective of several of these proposals is to promote the likelihood that the CQE's IFQ will be fished. So this action could expand the pool of community residents eligible to receive IFQ from CQEs, providing opportunity for residents in line with the program goals. And we just note too that with this proposal, there's some joint considerations with Proposal 1 and Proposed Item 4.

Okay. Sorry, Ms. Kimball. Sorry, sorry. Maybe you can touch on that when you go through item 4. Thank you.

Sorry. Yes, Madam Chair, I will maybe explain that, that point as I'm walking through item 4. So item 4 would allow CQEs to assign and manage quota in season.

This topic was also discussed in the previous discussion paper, but it was expanded on in this version.

Oops. So this is one of the topics that were highlighted in the program review as well, and also in subsequent testimony that there have been challenges for internal management of the CQEs' quota share. It was highlighted that the inability for CQE groups to, to view IFQ landings associated with the CQE or to conduct efficient return transfers of IFQ in the event that it's not fished by one resident may be factors leading to challenges in prosecuting their quota. So the motion had us look at the ability of CQEs to assign and manage quota in season. For example, explore processes similar to CDQ permit permitting for halibut or hired master permits.

This is a description, uh, in the paper there's a description of the current process in how these transfers occur. So CQEs can lease to IFQ to residents annually. If the lessee is unable to harvest the IFQ, there's no specific process or criteria to return the IFQ to the CQE. This is a direct transfer between CQE residents. Oh, a direct transfer between residents is considered a sublease, which is prohibited.

The IFQ system isn't designed to track or process transactions for the purpose of returning IFQ to quota shareholders after a temporary transfer. NIMS will evaluate requests for the return transfer of IFQ on a case-by-case basis. In the paper, there's a list of criteria it uses before approving a return transfer. This is a manual backend process in returning it, and it requires case-specific programming. NMFS is in the process now of redesigning the IFQ permit application as a larger program designed— in designing an integrated fisheries application that's adaptive and supports the needs of system stakeholders.

The application will utilize new technology, improve data quality, and streamline permitting process as well as simplifying program modifications necessary to implement regulatory changes.

The paper touches on the current IFQ hired masters or, or hired skipper program. This is another way besides leasing that someone other than the quota shareholder can harvest halibut and sablefish. The IFQ holder completes an application that lists individuals that will be harvesting. If the application is approved by NMFS, that individual receives a hired master permit, which they must carry on board at all times. And IFQ hired master privileges are only granted under specific circumstances.

So for Class A quota shareholders, for catcher vessel quota shareholders, it's only an issue initial issuees outside of Area 2C and Southeast outside with 20% ownership in a vessel, and for quota share acquired before February 12, 2010. This is intended to permit business structures that existed prior to the IFQ program, but the Council has amended provisions to limit further use of hired skippers numerous times through amendments. There are some statistics in the IFQ report to the fleet that show decreasing trends in IFQ harvest by hired skippers.

So this may look similar in practice to leasing, but it doesn't require IFQ to be transferred to NIMS. So from a management standpoint, these really are two distinct things. Quota shareholders remain liable for any fishing violations and fees associated with that IFQ.

Thank you. And Ms. Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Marinan, and just, I appreciate you walking through that. I'm just thinking from a high-level policy perspective, if you can confirm for me. So the, the middle bullet there, IFQ hired master privileges only granted under special circumstances in, for the purpose of A-class quota shareholders, um, that we don't That privilege will not phase out over time. It will always exist for A-class quota shareholders.

However, the second sub-bullet for catcher vessel quota shareholders, and from a policy perspective, the intent was as initial issuees phase out of the fishery, that hired master privilege will go away. So we kind of have both policy perspectives in the current regs. Am I understanding that right? Yeah, through the chair, Ms. Baker, that's correct. That second to last bullet is really scoped for catcher vessel quota.

You're right, with A-class quota, there, there isn't a system that would phase out that structure over time, so we currently sort of have two different management structures within the quota system. Yes.

As requested in, as requested in this motion, we provided some background on the CDQ program and similarities and differences with the CQE program. In the CDQ program, there's a portion of the BSAI TAC and PSC limits that are granted to 6 regional nonprofit corporations who manage their own quota directly. CDQ managers must submit hired master applications for all individuals eligible to to harvest. For CDQ halibut, it's the same application as for IFQ hired masters except there's no demonstration of vessel ownership required for CDQ managers. Similar to IFQ hired masters, it's not an official transfer of quota.

CDQ managers directly self-manage in-season distribution of quota harvesting across vessels and ensure they don't exceed the group's quota.

And Ms. Kimble. Thank you, Madam Chair. On this slide, if— since the question is whether to allow CQE to use a similar type of approach for residents, is there an opportunity then under an application process if we did go this direction that the CQE could attest to or the person in the hired master application, that individual could attest to residency. Part of the key part of the GOLF program is the CQE quota is only used by community residents, and that doesn't seem to be any part of the current IFQ hired master system or the CDQ hired master system, but it would be pretty important to maintain the goals of the GOLF program. So is that something that could be contemplated if the council went forward?

Through the Chair, Ms. Gimble, yes, I definitely think that could be something that could be considered using this as a model, but there are some differences depending on the specific goals of the CQE program. And just like you said, there's no— that's not part of the current application form. They don't look at residency. I think within CDQ groups, I think that's probably an important consideration within their internal management. But I, I don't believe that NIMS checks that right now within the IFQ hired master program, but perhaps something to consider if the council thinks about this as a route and how to ensure some of the CQE goals are brought into the system.

So in my understanding of the impetus of this proposed item, there's an interest in generating more accessible and efficient internal management system that may be, that may allow for quota to be harvested more efficiently. This table shows overall low prosecution rates of CQE quota. Over 750,000 pounds of CQE quota share went unfished in 2025, and I will highlight that this is aggregated across all groups. It was noted in testimony that with ADACS holdings of sablefish, which is quite high as you can see in Table 2, that will likely drive some of these trends. They need to be aggregated for purposes of confidentiality, but there are some distinct trends within groups that can't be seen here.

But low prosecution rates are an inability to efficiently harvest quota within the CQEs can be problematic because it may be out of alignment with the program's goals, which are to ensure that quota share and IFQ allocated to an eligible community entity would be held and not fished. Also, unlike other quota shareholders, CQEs likely need to secure loans for purchases of quota share, and so if there's no value generated from the quota, it makes it difficult to service the debt. From the quota share purchases. So an easier internal management system may encourage prosecution of their quota.

Yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Ms. Marinan, were you, were you alluding to the fact that we couldn't see this table broken out between the ADAC program or the Allusions program and the Gulf program because there's only one CQE in ADAC. I mean, it's a pretty different story if you separate the Gulf and the Aleutians. Through the Chair, yes, that's what I meant.

Okay. Madam Chair, I would agree that it's a, it's a different story, but I, I can't break out one CQE group's harvesting activity. So it's possible that in a future iteration we could kind of qualit— quantitatively characterize some of the differences more thoroughly than we did in this paper, but it, it would be problematic to try to break out individual groups or even Gulf from Aleutian Islands because there's only one CQA in the Aleutian Islands.

Okay, um, so in our preliminary assessment of this proposed item, We looked at two approaches for improving internal CQE quota share management, and the primary distinction here is in the liability and direct control of the IFQ. So the possible first pathway is to allow hired master privileges to be used for IFQ derived from CQEs. This would require substantial regulatory changes to shift from a leasing IFQ structure that currently exists. However, we do have a model here. This would be similar to the current process for hired masters.

CQEs could complete an application to list eligible hired skippers to fish their IFQ. The IFQ would remain in the name of the CQE, so, so would account access and liability. There would be no TCE or transfer process through RAM. So I guess this is where I'll note this intersects with Proposed Item 3, which would look at waiving the TCE requirements for CQE residents that proposal would, would no longer be necessary if you went this route because there wouldn't be a TCE required. So that's the nexus between the two.

There's a distinct policy consideration here in thinking about this pathway, and that's that the Council has continued to recommend amendments to reduce the use of hired skippers in Catcher Vessel Quota Share, which the CQEs can hold Catcher Vessel Quota Share. This is to allow, to allow original business structures to exist, but catcher vessel quota for use of hired skippers may phase out over time for other entities towards the goal of owner-operated fleets. And this is where I linked some of those stats with the IFQ report that showed the decreasing trends of IFQ fish by hired skippers. On the other hand, it may be in line with the CQE's goals of encouraging the IFQ to be fished. And provide more general, general internal efficiency.

The second possible pathway that the Council can consider under this proposed item is to keep the leasing structure but direct specific functions within the integrated fisheries application. The Council could articulate specific functions that could increase management efficiency, such as encouraging a process for return transfers or automated return transfers that the CQE managers could implement themselves. It may still require regulatory changes to direct that scope, but under— underlying system would still constitute a lease of IFQ and require a transfer through the eFISH system.

Yes, Mr. Mohler. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Miriam. On that point relative to the IFA, do we know, and it may be just a reminder for me, do we know where that is in the process with the, with the agency? And maybe this is an agency question.

Madam Chair, I can speak to it briefly, and then either Liz or Josh could speak to it more if they'd like, but It's, it's in development. It's more than a concept at this point. I think they're actively working on it. We don't have a specific time that we can provide you in terms of when it should be done. I think at some point it was discussed probably at least about a year of time, but a lot of the work that needs to be done on it will be done close consultation with RAM Division, which is particularly short on resources right now.

So I think that's one of the constraining factors, and programming support as well is important here. I don't know if you or Josh want to add anything.

Madam Chair, Josh Keeton, Alaska Regional Office. Sarah got that Really well put. Uh, the IFA project is not just limited to the IFQ program. It's CDQ. It's all of our permitting, and it's to replace those legacy systems that are kind of end of life, and we're barely keeping them online from— and so we've started with a lot of different things, and we're moving into IFQ.

And as Sarah mentioned, it's in close consultation. A lot of these systems were designed over 20, 30 years ago. And there's not a lot of documentation, so we're having to learn as we go. So I can't predict how long it's going to take before we have a functional IFQ part of IFA because our programming resources continue to be strained with other priorities such as moving to the cloud or two-factor authentication. So we'll keep you well informed.

Usually every year when we give the cost recovery report, we have a discussion on the IFA and the progress there as well.

Thank you. Mr. Muller. Yeah, follow-up, Madam Chair. So it's quite feasible that we may be looking at years out versus just a year, given the complexities and the lack of resources in the agency. Is that a fair assessment?

Through the Chair, I believe that would be a fair assessment. However, we continue to look at priorities at established, as long with, you know, region priorities. And so some things may be achievable at a faster timeframe than others. Um, but when we're talking about the IFQ system, that is quite the beast that we're trying to tackle. And, uh, um, there's a lot of unknowns, so it's hard to predict.

Yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you. Um, similar to Mr. Muller's question, I was trying to discern, you know, even if the council moved toward the first approach of using the hired master privilege, that, that also requires programming changes, correct? So trying to discern which one could come online faster is, I think, where, where Mr. Molar and I might be aligned. And I didn't know if there's anything to say about that, or that's just too uncertain at this point.

Uh, through the chair, I I don't think I can provide a real clear answer on this at this time. You know, we can always come back and provide more, but any programming in IFQ, in my opinion, should be done under the Integrated Fisheries Application, or else we're just prolonging the legacy system and you're duplicating your work. So that's kind of how we're streamlining, looking at any programming changes made for IFQ. However, we do evaluate, there are some things that we could do. So I think if the, if you were to move this forward for further analysis, we could evaluate that further and bring that back in that analysis.

Madam Chair, I would concur with what Josh said. I think you shouldn't hinge your decision on which one you think may happen first because they're both unknown. And I think, uh, in thinking about the first option, that is going to require programming changes like Josh said, um, and in order to not duplicate work, it— that might be better served within the IFA system depending on the timing of that system. So if it turns out that that system can move fairly rapidly, it would be advantageous to build in those changes from leasing to hired masters within that system. I think that would be ideal, but it depends on timing for these, and we don't know that for either of these options.

So just something to consider, but, um, they're both uncertain.

Thank you. And a different topic on this slide, I mean, I was curious, Ms. Marinan, about the policy consideration for the council and trying to weigh the trade-offs of meeting the CQE goals to have increased participation and use of the quota, and then the council's continued amendments to reduce use of hired skippers. But technically, under the CQE program, I mean, similar to CDQ, you you have to have a resident use it. Like, there is— the CQE is a nonprofit entity. It doesn't have its own boat to go on and fish the quota.

So inherent in the program is this use of community quota to be leased, no-cost lease or low-cost lease to cover admin costs, to residents. And that's technically using someone else, a lease or a hired skipper, to fish your quota. So I, I just am curious about providing us that trade-off in that. Way. I don't know how the CQE program would work otherwise.

Do you have any help there? Through the Chair, I think that's a fair point.

I framed it in this way because there have been repeated amendments to the hired skipper provisions to ensure that within the original structure, individuals who had that extra privilege, for instance, weren't able to acquire and invest in more quota and then continue to rely on that system. This may be a different situation. I think CQEs are inherently different, and I think maybe if this is the route you take, articulating that in your rationale could be helpful. The distinction between what is being proposed here versus another type of entity or individual that would wish to rely on hired skippers for the use. Making that distinction clear, I think, could be helpful, but, um, just thought it was important within this paper to demonstrate the different amendments that have happened to the hired skipper provision specifically since we're looking at those here.

Thank you. And Mr. Muller. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Under bullet 1, under the hired master privileges, you, you mentioned a substantial regulatory change from, would be, which kind of suggests a fairly heavy analytical lift. Is there any benefit, you know, we have other, other programs, A-Shares as well as CDQ, that currently operate under that type of structure.

So is there any benefit to the to this process relative to applying this to CQE as well?

Did I phrase that confusing?

Through the Chair, using the existing models, is your question to rely on the existing models to help and streamline the analytical lift? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry I butchered the question there, but that's really the question. Is there any benefit to the programs we already have under the CQE CDQ program and A-shares that benefit an analysis moving forward to apply the same model to CQE? Is that— through the chair, if I understand your question correctly, I think the fact that we have very similar models right now definitely could make this process simpler.

We already have an example of an application we could work from and start from there. Did I— sorry, did I miss your question? No, that— thanks for reading between the lines. I didn't articulate that question very well, but that answers it. So to sum it up, I mean, it could benefit the process relative to an analysis relative to applying the hired master ability to the CQE, similar to what we have with the CDQ.

Could, being that we already have programs in place, could benefit that analysis and the workload that may be required of yourself and the agency. Through the chair, yeah, I definitely think the fact that we have very similar programs to what we're talking about would help with the analytical lift and potentially the implementation lift. We're just highlighting here that even so, this system is set up on a leasing structure, and although in practice it can look similar to hired skipper use, there's lots of regulations that would need to change, and there's a lot of probably small detailed questions that would come up, such as how do we ensure it's going— monitoring enforcement that it's going to residents within the community. Do we— are we still— there's a number of other questions I've been starting to think about if this moves forward, such as the requirements, the vessel, CQE-specific vessel use caps, 50,000 pounds, can be transferred to an individual vessel, 50,000 pounds can be transferred to an individual resident within a CQE community. How do you have a monitoring enforcement structure for those CQE-specific transfer restrictions within a different program?

I think it can be done, but there's a number of additional details that would need to be considered within an analysis and also I think on the implementation side, but I do think the fact that we have existing structures that look like this will benefit that process. Thank you.

Any other questions about proposed item 4?

Okay, moving on to 5.

So this is looking at the CQE vessel use cap.

So testimony in October of last year proposed to increase or remove the 50,000-pound vessel use cap specifically for CQE derived from sablefish IFQ for the Aleutians Island CQE. It was stated that this cap is a barrier to full harvest of the CQE's sablefish IFQ, as current holdings would require 13 unique vessels to fully harvest the CQE's full sablefish quota share.

CQE regulations limit a vessel to harvesting no more than 50,000 pounds of sablefish derived from a CQE's quota in a fishing year, This 50,000-pound limit applies to all CQEs. There are similar CQE-specific 50,000-pound limits for halibut IFQ as well.

The objective is to ensure broad distribution of CQE benefits among vessel owners. There's also a general vessel use cap, which is 1% of all the sablefish IFQ TAC, and that's shown in Table 8 in the paper. This also applies, but it's usually much higher. So the specific cap that would be— so the CQE-specific cap is the one that would be theoretically constraining the fleet. Also of relevance here, there's a 50,000-pound cap on the amount of IFQ that an individual may receive from a CQE.

That's not part of this proposal, and so if this moves forward, that would remain in place.

There's a fair amount of background on the Aleutian Islands CQE in the paper. There's one, the ADAC Community Development Corporation, ACDC. Table 9 in the paper shows ACDC's sablefish holdings. You can see there's a difference there in 2025 and '26 where they've acquired additional quota. Um, so they've had challenges in full prosecution of the quota share.

Again, landings data is confidential. I can't show landings for this specific CQE. They have had 0 to 3 active vessels harvesting for them each year. So far, the vessels have not been near the 50,000-pound cap. However, as highlighted in public testimony, the proposed action could potentially provide new partnership opportunities if a vessel is better able to capitalize on the economies of scale associated with harvesting more quota.

Page 25 of the analysis describes that even if these vessel caps were removed, there are likely to be other factors that would continue to challenge the prosecution of this quota.

So for instance, only 1.7% of the Aleutian Island TAC was harvested in 2025, so a lot of quota went unfished. Also, there's still a cap on the amount that an IFQ of IFQ that an individual can harvest. So with this removed, you could consolidate the quota onto 2 vessels, but you would still need 14 IFQ holders on board to harvest it. Also, there's a temporary exemption for ACDC to be able to lease to non-residents, but this exemption expires in 2028. So after that point, depending on what the TAC is, you may need 14 ADAC residents IFQ holders on board to fully harvest the quota.

This proposed— this proposal highlights policy trade-offs between the original objectives of ensuring broad distribution of benefits and ensuring the quota share has an opportunity to be fished. So this is a type of policy trade-off that's been considered before, especially recently with changing dynamics within the fisheries. So one example of this is recently Area 4 vessel IFQ caps were changed that increased the halibut vessel cap for Area 4 and specified that halibut IFQ held by the Area 4 B CQE wouldn't accrue towards that vessel cap.

This proposed action is specific to the ADAC CQE and it's specific to sablefish, So if the, if the council moves forward to identify, it may be helpful to identify a specific rationale around this scope and thinking about this proposal.

Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you. I just want to, um, ask whether there's any tie to the item 5 issue with the item 4 issue. You mentioned you could remove the vessel use cap for ADAC and then all of their quota could essentially be fished on one vessel, but you still have the limit on the amount that each person can lease from the CQE, so you'd still need all of those people depending on that cap to be on the boat. It, yeah, it really is my level of confusion.

If we move to the hired master privilege system, would you still need to remove the regulations that require— that have a limit on the number of people that could lease quota from the ADAC CQE? Are those connected in any way, or am I missing the point?

Madam Chair, they— I think they could be connected. Um, if you're looking at proposed item 4 and you're moving that forward, current regulations have a CQE-specific limit on how much an individual can lease from that group, 50,000 pounds. So that's in place. If you move to a hired skipper framework, those regulations would have to be monitored and enforced differently. They're still on the books, so unless you specifically, unless your recommendations specifically are to remove those regulations, I think we would be looking for new ways to monitor and enforce them.

But I think those, those are definitely points to consider under proposed item 4 is, um, are those restrictions still important? And if they are, how are we going to monitor and enforce them under this new system? Because it would be different since there isn't an official lease happening.

Okay, if there's no other questions with, um, number 5, I'll move on to number 6.

So this is a proposed item to look at the CQE quota share use caps.

So in October of last year, the council received testimony proposing to eliminate the individual CQE purchase limitations. The testimony described that community long-term planning and funding opportunities may be impacted by these limits, and the motion said the use caps established for all CQEs would remain in place at 21%, but the total halibut and sablefish IFQ in each regular— of the total halibut and sablefish IFQ in each regulatory area, but the total halibut and sablefish quota share a Gulf of Alaska CQE group is eligible to hold would increase.

So, as stated in the proposal, there's limits on how much, uh, CQE community can hold. That limit matches quota share use caps for all persons holding quota share, um, unless they were grandfathered in at a higher rate. Table 10 demonstrates the individual quota shareholder use caps, which apply to a person as well as each community represented by a CQE. Table 11 in the paper demonstrates how many communities could theoretically purchase up to their individual limit based on the cumulative limits for each species and area. This table demonstrates that CQE community— CQE cumulative caps are most likely to have an effect for Area 3B halibut quota share, Central Gulf, or Western Yakutat sablefish quota share, just based off of what the individual cap is relative to the total cap.

So thinking a little bit more about this proposed action, as Ms. Kimball highlighted earlier on in the presentation, there's no Gulf of Alaska CQE that is currently close to the individual group limits, and you can see that in Table 1. However, as highlighted in testimony, the limits may affect long-term planning, funding opportunities, and could be a constraint in the future. The caps were intended to balance CQE opportunity with possible impacts to other quota share new entrants and quota share markets. The proposed action may have no impact, or it may allow one or more groups to transfer over the caps. Further analysis could consider broader quota share market impacts here.

There have been recent restrictions on medical lease transfers that have started to take in effect and potentially have an effect in the market and may result in more quota share on the market. There's also the recent implementation of the Charter Helbit Stamp as funding for the recreational quota entity that may generate more competition in the market, and these are things that could be considered in a further analysis.

Okay, moving on to proposed item 7, I'm going to pass it over to Liz. Thank you, Sarah. Um, so item 7, uh, was a request for clarification on whether, uh, current regulations allow CQEs in the Gulf of Alaska to hold federal processing permits. Um, NMFS was not able to attend the meeting when this came up. Uh, had we been able to, we would have, uh, offered clarification that yes, CQEs in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands may apply for and hold FPPs.

I provided a— excuse me— link to regulations and our website where you can find these permit applications.

Item 8 is the first of the two proposed items regarding prior notice of landings. This motion item requested to consider the potential to waive the prior notice of landing requirement and restricted unload hours for small IFQ deliveries. Specifically, the motion requested consideration of a 2,000-pound threshold for PNOLO waivers. In testimony, it was expressed that there was difficulty with the PNOLO submission time requirements, particularly for smaller vessels which have lower operational efficiency, more vulnerability to weather, and safety conditions. Additionally, the PNOl submission occurs via phone call, and so vessels operating in remote areas without cell phone coverage express difficulty with being able to do that.

OLE's operational hours also limit efficiency regarding some vessels would prefer to be able to unload deliveries in the night and quickly return back to fishing grounds to reduce their overhead.

So PNOs were part of the implementation of the IFQ program. They're one of the primary mechanisms to fulfill enforcement and requirements enforcement and compliance objectives of the program. They're used to notify OLE in order for them to travel to meet deliveries of IFQ or CDQ halibut and IFQ sablefish.

In regulations, the prior notice of landing must be submitted at least 3 hours prior to making these deliveries, and again by calling the Office of Law Enforcement during their operational hours, which are 6 AM to midnight.

And to be clear, that's the operational hours for their call center.

Something that did not make it into the discussion paper is that there are additional regulations regarding the unloading hours for these deliveries of IFQ CDQ Sahalibut or IFQ Sablefish. This can be found under regulations for e-landings and registered buyer landing reports, and the hours for these landings are restricted to between 6 AM and 6 PM unless given permission to land at a different time is granted in advance by OLE. So, OLE reviews PNOls on a case-by-case basis. And so, reading these regulations collectively, at the time a PNOl is submitted, when a vessel operator calls the OLE call center, they may ask for permission to unload later than 6 PM. And that is a case-by-case discussion that they would have with enforcement officers.

There are two current PnOL waivers found in regulations. Both are for 500 pounds or less of IFQ halibut landed concurrent to fishing for salmon via troll or lingcod via dinglebar. These regulations, these waivers for PnOL deliveries were adopted to facilitate compliance with requirements that IFQ permit holders with remaining quota are required to retain halibut landed incidental, and these waivers are specific to halibut landed incidental to state-managed fisheries that otherwise do not require OLE officers to report to these landings. The 500-pound threshold for both waivers was selected to be sufficiently large enough to cover the typical amount caught incidental to these fisheries, but not so large as to jeopardize effective monitoring goals of the program. And importantly, under both waivers, the Registered Buyer Landings Report is still required, and this is occasionally referred to in other locations as the IFQ or CDQ Landings Report.

And, uh, this is a link below, um, to our website where if you scroll down you can find, um, the IFQ landings report, um, which is typically submitted via eLandingsOnline, but there is an option for, uh, manual submission.

Again, PNOls are used for monitoring enforcement. The council recognized that the IFQ programs issue and subquota could create incentive to underreport landings, and therefore recommended multiple requirements including the PNOL to increase the monitoring and enforceability of the program while also balancing costs to fishery user groups. In particular, as I already stated, the PNOL is used to notify OLE officers. They're also used to notify IPHC port samplers Relevant to the 2,000-pound threshold that was requested for consideration, the IPHC has specific sampling protocols for what they term small landings, which are considered to be 2,000 pounds in larger ports—Bellingham, Juneau, Petersburg, Sitka, and Homer—and 1,000 pounds in all other ports. I've included a link to the 2026 sampling manual where on page 15 you can find more details on this.

Part of their protocol is that these ports have sampling on specific days of the week, and these sampling manuals, as I understand, are updated and republished each year, so they can potentially change.

So I'm going to take a moment to explain tables 12 and 13 from the paper, which I have broken apart on the next two slides to look at halibut first and then sablefish. So we, we took the, the requested 2,000-pound threshold for consideration and pulled all predominantly halibut deliveries that had PNOL tickets tied to them for the most recent 5 years available, 2021 to 2025. And so the top panel is from Table 12. Which is looking at the proportion of those trips for which the landings were 2,000 pounds or less of halibut. And so essentially we're saying, we're looking at, had this 2,000-pound waiver been in place 2021 to 2025, what proportion of trips each year would have been waived of the PNOL requirement and subsequently waived of OLE enforcement oversight.

And that proportion is expressed in the far right column, which is highlighted in yellow. So from 2021 to 2025, the proportion of trips that would have been waived of the PNOL requirement for 2,000 pounds or less of halibut was 46 to 50% of trips. And the bottom panel is from Table 13, which is looking at the proportion of total halibut by weight delivered on those same trips with less than or equal to 2,000 pounds. And so for each year 2021 to 2025, the proportion of halibut weight each year that would have been waived from the PNOL requirement and OLE oversight ranged from 6.8 to 11%. And if you've been squinting, you might notice that these numbers increased over time, which is about what we would expect given that halibut tax and CPUEs have also declined in recent years.

So the, the proportion of trips that would have been waived increased over the 5-year period, proportion of trips and proportion of weight.

And so this is looking at the same thing but for sablefish. And so before you move on, I just, for a point of clarification, is this, this was all regulatory areas in the United States? Yes, we pulled the regulatory areas. Yeah, thanks.

So looking at sablefish for the same years and using the same methods, 4 to 7% of trips would have been waived from 2021 to 2025. and we look at sablefish by volume, so 0.2 to 0.5% of the total sablefish volume each year would have been waived. And inverse to what we saw with halibut, that proportion declined over time at a somewhat reduced rate relative to halibut.

So our assessment looked at the 2,000-pound threshold, which we just went over, and there does seem to be potential benefit to smaller vessels, with smaller deliveries, should, should the council recommend moving forward with considering, uh, PNO waivers for, for small deliveries. Um, the council could also, uh, recommend analyses of other thresholds potentially closer to the current exemptions, which again were 500 pounds of less offer of halibut caught incidental to state-managed— oops— state-managed fisheries.

And again, this would potentially alleviate some of the overlap with the IPHC sampling protocol for landings of 1,000 pounds or 2,000 pounds depending on the port. The Council could also potentially ask the Enforcement Committee to weigh in on this item, um, the enforcement committee may, uh, be able to offer potential other paths to meet the enforcement and monitoring goals of the program. Um, there have been considerable, uh, advancements in technology since the implementation of the IFQ program, such as VMS, uh, which could potentially reduce the PNO reporting burden in remote areas.

And the enforcement committee could also potentially weigh in on the next paper regarding impacts, potential impacts to compliance oversight. Um, the, the council's motion item for this also specified restricted unload hours for small deliveries. Regarding this potential expansion of unloading hours, any expansion of OLE's unloading hours, which are again 6 AM to 6 PM, and this is specified under the regulations for the registered buyer landing report, or operational hours 6 AM to 12 AM, which is specified under the PNOL requirements, expansion of either of those windows would potentially incur proportional increases to the IFQ program's implementation costs and subsequently cost recovery fees.

Costs related to expansion of either hours would also potentially likely be the same regardless of the size of the deliveries made, particularly with regards to staff time.

Were there any other questions on this item before I move? There's also considerable overlap on the 2 P&OL items. I wonder if we'll maybe be circling back. Um, so, uh, proposed item 9 requested considering the expansion of the designated unloading hour areas for tenders receiving IFQ. Um, the proposal specified, uh, Discussion of expansion of the designated unload areas for tenders receiving IFQ or CQE halibut or sablefish.

Testimony from October 2025 reported difficulty finding accessible processing and marketing options in remote communities. The proposers suggested that the issue could be alleviated by expanding eligible areas for unloading to tenders located outside of ports, which would similar to item 8, potentially reduce operational costs such as fuel, travel time. This could be potentially particularly relevant to the newly formed CQE Southeast Village Fisheries Collective. The proposers also noted that access to tender service closer to fishing grounds is not exclusively relevant to CQE derived IFQ.

So we looked at this item in sort of two phases. One is the designated unloading areas, the other is the tenders receiving deliveries. And so starting with the latter, tenders receiving IFQ or CQE halibut or sablefish, in regulations for registered buyer permits, uh, these permits are required in order to receive landings of IFQ, CDQ halibut or sablefish. So tenders receiving halibut or sablefish IFQ or CDQ must possess the registered buyer permits, and in our analysis we looked to the 2026 Report to the Fleet, which examined the years 2021 to 2025 and suggested that no— well, actually, it stated plainly that, um, no, no tenders received IFQ landings in, in that period. Um, in 2021, there was no reported tender with a registered buyer permit.

Uh, that number increased to 2 from 2022 to 2024 and increased again to 4 in 2025. Um, but none of these tenders with registered buyer permits were actively receiving deliveries of IFQ or CDQ during that 5-year period.

Uh, looking to the designated unload areas, uh, portion of the proposed motion item, um, there are 2 relevant, uh, sets of, uh, regulations. The first is under the PNO information requirements, which require a port of landing and port code from Table 14A to Part 679. Table 14 does include an option for, quote, other Alaska ports, but the keyword being port there, and also a location within the port such as a dock, a harbor, a facility name, or even coordinates. The second part of regulations pertaining to the designated unloading areas is found under the registered buyer landing reports, which also specify referencing a port of landing import code from Table 14A.

So collectively, registered buyer permits, the PNOL, and registered buyer landing report regulations mean that tenders with registered buyer permits must be within ports in order to receive IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish as the regulations stand currently.

So if the council wishes to move forward on this proposal, it may consider whether this motion is intended to allow IFQ CQE deliveries outside of ports, potentially expand the list of ports in Table 14A. The council could also express desire to establish specific criteria, such as a radius around each port that would be allowable for unloading, um, and/or add general language to clarify other types of locations allowable. Additional potential considerations: requisite regulatory changes and analyses of impacts for alternatives. Weighing the objectives of this item and the IFQ program, such as specifically the ability to unload closer to fishing grounds and increase operational efficiency for fishery participants, balanced against the monitoring and enforcement goals of the IFQ program. And this really applies to item 8 as well, and also the relative scope and potential benefits of the alternatives.

Yep. Yes, Ms. Kimball. Um, apologies, I thought maybe you were done, but I wanted to know on slide 51, in providing the current regulations, what does it mean that a tender with a registered buyer permit must still be within a port? Does that mean it must be docked in a community that is listed on the table? Um, backing up, I, excuse me, through the chair, uh, backing up one more.

Yeah, so, um, there's, there's a lot of regulations that were kind of— I was putting together on slide 51. Um, but when the PNOL is submitted, um, the, the vessel operator or the registered buyer is communicating with OLE and giving them the port that they're going to be in and also a specific location in the port. So I don't think that it— perhaps some clarification in your question. Were you asking specifically, does it— does the vessel need to be docked or just that it could be anywhere within the port?

Um, yes, through the chair, it was on, on slide 51. My, my question was, under current regulations, where can the tender be to take deliveries of IFQ halibut and sablefish? Does it need to be docked in that community? Is there already some radius expected? I think the purpose of this, even considering this idea, is, is to allow pretty small boats in rural communities to be able to deliver to a tender that is not near a port so the tender can take it to a bigger community to process the catch.

So that's the purpose, but what are the current regulations saying in terms of where a tender with a registered buyer permit must be? What does the "be in a port" mean?

Through the Chair, I will try to answer this, but I believe that Alex Perry, our OLE representative, is also on the line and may be able to offer additional information. This is essentially the information that is in regulations, but as stated earlier, these PnOL submissions are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I— that might be all that I can say right now.

Through the chair, thank you for the question, Ms. Kimball. Alex Perry, for the record, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. In practice, it generally means that they are dockside, shoreside. However, you know, given the strict reading of the regulations, they don't— it's not required that they be shoreside or dockside so long as they're within the port. If there are existing maps that demonstrate port boundaries, we tend to attempt to utilize those to determine whether or not a vessel is in a port.

Thank you, Mr. Perry. A follow-up then: is there opportunity for OLE to determine— I mean, let's say a vessel is not, not near a port, but, but calls in and says, I'm going to deliver to this tender that actually has a registered buyer permit. Is that a case-by-case assessment of OLE, or, or does OLE just say that's not possible under current regulations? I'm trying to determine if regulations even need to be changed in order to accommodate what's being asked of the council.

Uh, thank you for the question, and then through the chair, it's more the latter, as in, uh, they do need to be within a designated port within 14 in order to qualify to take those deliveries under the current regulations.

So it would require changing the regulations. And as Liz has said, that could be adding options to that list of other ports. But in the case of tender deliveries outside of a port, that would require, I think, further change to the regulations.

Thank you.

And just before we move on, I know that the language in the data request in the discussion paper was specific to IFQ and CQE, from my understanding. Just wanted to clarify that the registered buyer permit and designated landing port requirements were also required for CDQ, or is there some special exemption? Thanks. Uh, yes, I'm through the chair.

Um, uh, yes, the registered buyer landing reports are specific to IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish.

Okay, um, I believe we only have one more slide, so, uh, yep, we did this one. Okay, uh, considering items 8 and 9, which were both of the PNOL, um, related, uh, motion items together, um, and I've provided just shorthand of each item at the top. Uh, if the council wishes to move forward with both items 8 and 9, um, the analyses would likely need to consider the cumulative impacts of both changes, um, and potential intersections. Uh, for example, waiving the PNOL for small deliveries does not eliminate the landing location requirement, which is found under the registered buyer landing reports. Um, additionally, as As stated earlier, the council may wish to ask the enforcement committee to review any further analyses on these topics.

Um, and I will hand it back to Sarah.

Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Thank you. Through the chair, if Mr. Perry is still on before we leave items 8 and 9, I, I was just trying, and maybe we'll get some more input through public comment to try to discern Well, just OLE's assessment of the cost of, of changes under 8 and 9. I can look at it one way and seeing it's reducing costs. I felt like the paper alluded to the fact that it might increase costs for OLE.

And having not gone through the enforcement committee yet, I'd really like to know, Mr. Perry, if you have an opinion on that under items 8 and 9.

Cost to enforcement and the agency.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Miss Kimball, for the question.

With respect to expanding the, um, call center, that would certainly require, uh, adding staff to the call center to be able to operate outside of the 6 AM to midnight, uh, in order to take those prior notice of landings. However, if council were to select to waive those prior notice of landing call-in requirements, obviously that would not require hiring more folks to take those calls because they would no longer be required calls.

With respect to the potential to expand unload areas and unload times, If OLE were to have to operate by sending enforcement officers to designated ports outside of the standard 6-to-6 operations for offloads, you know, that would increase costs.

If expanding to tenders expanding other offload areas, you know, that are outside of our ability to get to, that's a bit of a more difficult question because we do oftentimes have pulse operations where if there's going to be a significant amount of activity in a particular fishery, in a particular area, we will design a pulse operation to go, say, you you know, out to ADAC in order to monitor offloads for IFQ in this case, if this were to happen. So, it's harder to determine what a net change in cost to operations would be. But if we were to do, you know, an IFQ-specific pulse operation to an area outside of, of ports listed in 14, or, you know, expanded areas, that would be recoverable costs. But I hesitate to try to predict exactly what the costs would be without understanding necessarily what counsel's desires are with respect to using 8 and 9 together, with respect to you know, only employing one, uh, without understanding exactly, um, how that would— the rubber would meet the road. Uh, so I, I hope that helps.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Perry, in the, the ports where you don't have a regular OLE presence, Are the Alaska Wildlife Troopers able to monitor some of these offloads through your joint enforcement agreement with them?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bowers, for the question. That's a good, good question and a good point. And the answer to that is yes, through the joint enforcement agreement that we have with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers. They are deputized as NOAA OLE agents, and so therefore they can and do monitor offloads in areas that we don't have port presence or office presence.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Pamplin. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, Mr. Perry. Just a question.

What is What do you achieve roughly in terms of monitoring landings, either through the Office of Law Enforcement or, as Mr. Bowers pointed out, your, uh, JEA with the state troopers?

Through the chair, uh, thank you, Mr. Pamplin, for the question. Um, if I may, I, I might counter with a question. When you say, uh, what do you achieve, do you mean from The Programmatic Council objectives, or do you mean quantitatively?

Uh, thanks. Let me attempt to rephrase. I, I'm wondering what percent of landings does an enforcement officer review for monitoring and compliance? Are you able to achieve 75% of the landings, uh, or some other value?

Yes, thank you very much through the chair, uh, for that clarification. For this discussion paper, uh, we did not look into that, and so that is something that, that I would have to, um, analyze and get back to you in another iteration of this paper. And apologies for not having an answer at the ready for that.

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

I think we're ready to move on.

So the next step is for the council to consider whether to move forward one or more of the proposed items that you reviewed, and if so, how you would like to move them forward. You could ask for an expanded, expanded discussion paper or initiate an initial review analysis. We've had IFQ omnibus amendments in the past, so some of these actions could be packaged within an analysis. There's trade-offs to moving actions forward separately versus combining them if they can fit under the same purpose and need or joint purpose and need statement. Thinking about which proposed changes are the biggest lift because they'll likely drive the timeline for the action.

Packaging things can lead to efficiencies. Affected parties can come together and testify at the same time. There's shared background context in the paper. It can also lead to sometimes a slower package if they all move together and, and more to present to you at one time when it does come forward. If the Council moves forward on one or more of these proposed items, it may consider its reliance on expertise of some of its committees as well.

There's an IFQ committee, and as we talked about, enforcement committee that can provide additional input if requested in this process. And with that, I'd just like to thank all of our contributors that helped out with this paper, and, and with that, we're happy to take any further questions. Thank you very much for the presentation. Are there any final questions?

Seeing none, thank you for all of your work on this.

So that brings us to our AP report on D3. Any members of the public wishing to sign up for public testimony, please do so before the end of the AP report. Um, after the report, we'll actually— we'll take our mid-morning break and then come back and take up public testimony.

And we need just 1 minute to get the motion on the screen here.

Can I put the football game back on while I'm waiting?

Uh, good morning, Madam Chair. Are we ready to go? Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, council members. For the record, my name is Heather Mann.

I am one of the vice chairs on the AP, and I'm providing our motion on D3. The AP recommends the council adopt a purpose and need and the following suite of alternatives for initial review. The purpose and need could include these recommendations. Commercial fisheries have long served as the cultural, social, and economic foundation for coastal Alaska communities, providing jobs and income, food security, and multigenerational knowledge and cultural transfer. While the CQE program was designed to create greater access for Gulf communities over the past two decades, the high cost of halibut IFQ and administrative burden of starting and managing a CQE has limited its success.

The CQE program intended to maintain commercial fishing opportunities in rural coastal Alaskan communities to revive economic opportunity and rebuild infrastructure essential to the harvesting, processing, and marketing of seafood, the local employment and economy, the generations of connections to the sea, and the long-term viability of the community itself. These actions intend to help enhance access to the halibut and sablefish resource by residents of fishing— fishery-dependent communities. So Alternative 1 is no action. Alternative 2 is modify the following provisions of the IFQ and CQE programs. Element 1, excuse me, Element 1, allow timed tendering in any U.S. federal or state commercial fishery to count towards the 150-day A, eligible— eligibility requirement to receive IFQ or quota share by transfer.

Element 2, replace the existing NIMS interim policy with a regulation to establish a minimum age to be eligible to receive IFQ or quota share by transfer. A, 11 years. B, 14 years. Suboption C, 16 years. Element 3, allow a CQE to assign and manage quota in season through the use of the Hired Master system.

Suboption A, waive minimum eligibility requirements for eligible fishermen fishing CQE quota similar to the regulations for hired masters. B, allow quota share or IFQ transfers to persons under 18 years of age. Element 4, Increase the amount of quota an individual Gulf CQE can hold. This is no change to the overall cap for the entire program, 25% of the total halibut quota share and 21% of the total sablefish quota share in each IFQ regulatory area in which CQEs are eligible to hold quota share. Suboption A, Area 2, per community: 1, 1%, which is status quo; 2, which is 1.5%; 3, 2%.

B, Area 2C, 3A, 3B combined per community, 1.5%, which is the status quo, 2, 1%, 3, 2%. And C, recommend changes to the CQE regulations to allow a regional CQE to hold up to the community level cap for each individual community it represents. Element 5, waive the prior notice of landing requirements and restricted unload hours for small IFQ deliveries. Analysis should include consideration of Element 6 and the ability of tenders to receive IFQ delivery at an amount sufficient to service a remote CQE community without a currently operational processor. Suboption A, 1,000 pounds.

Suboption B, 1,500 pounds. Suboption C, 2,000 pounds. Element 6, expand IFQ unloading areas by A, adding all Gulf CQE communities listed in Table 21 to Part 679 in 50 CFR. B, provisions to tie Element 5 and 6 together. And C, allowing IFQ to be received by a tender vessel for delivery to a buying station or registered buyer in a port.

And finally, none of these elements are mutually exclusive and may be selected in combination. And that motion passed 17 to 0, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.

Thank you for the motion, Miss Mann. Yes, Miss Kimball, then Miss Vanderhoeven. Thank you. Through the chair, thank you, Miss Mann. I have a couple, uh, questions.

I, I was looking at the element 2 and element 3 and the minimum age to be able to receive IFQ by transfer. And I'm just trying to understand, is the Element 3 Suboption B, is that just creating a different standard, a different minimum age for CQE held quota than every other IFQ holder under Element 2, or am I, am I missing something between those two? Through the Chair, Ms. Kimball, I don't know the exact answer to that. I do know that there are several younger people that are fishing, you know, with their families and they want to be able to own their own quota at younger ages, but I don't know enough about the program to be able to answer that without speculating. Apologies.

That's okay. Thank you. Um, maybe I'll hold there, see what— see what Ms. Vander.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Mann. Um, my question is on the rationale not to include the Aleutian Island CDQ, and I'm, I'm just, I guess, trying to kind of read between the lines. Did the AP feel like that should move in a whole separate package, or just that it was challenging for the AP to find a way to incorporate it here? Uh, through the chair, Ms. Vanderhoeven, thanks for the question.

So, uh, no, not a separate package. Uh, it was simply that, um, there was a challenge incorporating it at the AP, but there was an assumption that if something was to move forward here, that the council could incorporate something for the, um, solutions versus at the AP.

Thank you. And Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks for the AP report, Miss Mann. Could you explain the AP's rationale for the age ranges in Element 2? You know, there's a 3-year gap between 11 and 14 and then a 2-year gap between 14 and 16.

What What was the thinking around that? Through the Chair, Mr. Bowers, thanks for the question. That might be some information that you can pull out of public comment. We did not have a big discussion about the age limits presented, just that there have been instances where folks as young as 10 have been out fishing.

And so, but there was no in-depth discussion around, that I recall, around the different age limits. Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Muller? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Mann, for the report. Um, under bullet 8 of your rationale, I, I think I, I understand, um, the AP's discussion on this.

I'm just, um, a little bit curious, and this has to do with the, um, council taking up on the action of hired skipper provision for CQE and the rationale.

Do I need to repeat that? Okay. The rationale here references that the Council take this up versus leaving it for the IFA to develop, and it references you know, alleviating some of the burden and administrative, you know, cost, if you will, to our RAM and NIMS staff as well. Was there any other further discussion from the, maybe the public or the AP members during deliberations relative to maybe concerns with waiting for the IFA and not addressing it at the council level now? Through the chair, Mr. Muller, my recollection about this discussion was that there were concerns about increased costs that could come back to the industry through cost recovery, but also that there was just a challenge right now with workload in the agency.

And I think that they wanted to get something done quicker now instead of later, and that through the council process, it could be prioritized and addressed sooner. Um, but that's really all I remember about that discussion.

Thank you. Any further questions on the AP report? Yes, Ms. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Ms. Mann, for the report relative to— I'm, I'm back on Element 2 with Mr. Bowers.

I was just reading through the rationale, all of which was Very helpful for this motion. Thank you, uh, to the AP for that. In, in terms of, um, the AP's noting that, uh, the discussion paper noted potential legal issues with contracts, responsibilities, etc., associated with, um, younger, uh, people, that a co-signature could easily replace those concerns, but that I didn't see any modification of of the options in Element 2 to sort of accommodate that? Was that just more of a, um, maybe for the analyst's consideration or the agency's consideration if this goes forward? Is that how the AP intended that?

Uh, through the, through the chair, Ms. Baker, yes.

Thank you. Any further questions on the AP report?

Thank you, Ms. Mann, and for all of your work this meeting. Thank you. Appreciate it. So we'll take our mid-morning break and come back at 10:20 and begin public testimony on D3. Thank you.

Council members, please come back to order.

Hey, welcome back everyone. We are ready to begin public testimony on D3. We have 4 people signed up to testify. Um, Beginning with Duncan Fields and Freddie Christensen, followed by Steve Minor.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the council. I wish I could channel Klemtilian and be relaxed and, uh, nervous, or less nervous when I come, but after all these years, it still creates some anxiety to sit at this table. And today I'm here as Duncan Fields, the quota manager or program manager for Cape Barnabas Inc., the CQE. For Old Harbor and Usinky Community Holding Inc., which is the CQE for Usinky. Both entities have managing boards that are comprised of representatives from the tribe, the municipal government, and the Village Angksa Corporation.

I think it's important to note that these CQEs are very diverse within each community. Outside of ADAC and the unique circumstances there, which you've been talking about, Old Harbor, Cape Barnabas was the first CQE entity to purchase quota back in 2008, followed by Usinki as the second entity to purchase quota. Each entity has had a very small measure of success over the last 16 years of managing their quota and expanding their quota holdings. And we appreciate the discussion paper that's been developed I feel like that adequately covers the issues for the council to develop an amendment package to move forward, and we're encouraging you to move that package forward. I really want to address two issues with the council in my testimony.

The first is the in-season transfer issue, and the second is the increase in the individual CQ community purchase or holding limit. I'll touch briefly on ADAC if I have time and the other issues in the current paper. We've been transferring quota now since 2008 was our first purchase, and it's always been somewhat awkward, somewhat burdensome, and occasionally very difficult. For example, two springs ago it took us 6 weeks to get a quota transfer from the CQE to the individual. More recently, with limited resources in RAM, you have less experience with the CQE program and more questions and ambiguity.

And it's been each time or each year that transfers quota, the feedback we get from folks within RAM is, you know, we have to do this by hand, we have to do hand entry, the system's not developed for a CQE, et cetera, et cetera. In addition, the CQE is a unique hybrid. It's the only entity within the IFQ program It is leasing quota, but it's not treated like the entity that owns the quota and controls the quota once it's leased. If you're a CDQ, as the analysis points out, or if you're an A-shareholder or a grandfathered-in IFQ holder, when you lease that quota, you still have control of the hired skipper that controls that quota. With the CQE, the quota is transferred out of our eFISH account to the lessee's account, and if they choose not to give it back, and you saw the criteria that National Marine Fisheries uses for the retransfer, we can do nothing about that.

We're completely at risk with regard to that lessee fishing that quota or not. We've had a good track record, but I won't presume on the future. And so in our circumstances, in one community where we have a quota shareholder of about 15,000 pounds, that represents about $75,000 of revenue to the CQE. If that person would retain the quota, choose not to fish it, we couldn't meet the debt service for that CQE in that community. So that's the peril or the risk or liability that the CQEs are currently under.

That's why we're asking that you consider treating the CQEs more similar to either a CDQ or an A shareholder. So that we would be able to have hired skippers or hired masters and be able to manage and control that quota throughout the season rather than have this unusual transfer to the individual's account, which is unique to the CQEs. It's just more similarly situated as an entity to either the CDQ program or those that are allowed to have the hired masters. In addition to that, should we move in that direction, we solve a couple of other issues. One is the certificate of eligibility.

The CQE, if it were allowed to have hired masters, could then designate those within the community, and they would not need a certificate of eligibility. I agree with Nicole relative to residency of the community. I don't know that you need a special check on the form, but the CQE program is embedded in the idea that the people fishing CQ quota would be residents of the community, and I don't think that would change with regard to the designation as to whether they were hired skippers or leasees per se. The other issue is with regard to the age issue. As far as I can see, and staff can confirm or refute, I don't know that there's an age limitation in terms of transfer to a CQ community, to a resident, transfer to a hired master if the hired master were from a CQ community.

This is really a community effort to develop and fish these shares. I can envision, as others will testify, young men in high school would like to have 1,000 pounds or 1,500 pounds to go out and try fishing the CQE. So allowing the CQE to transfer quota to individuals that are less than 18 years old makes sense to me. It works if you treat the CQE as an entity that can have hired masters, hired skippers. The second issue is really an issue that's embedded in the history of the CQE program.

CQEs were created to address an unexpected or an unintended consequence of the IFQ program. IFQs were implemented in 1995. By 1997, '98, within just 3 years, we saw a massive exodus of quota from the rural communities. The first white paper on the CQE program was written in 1997. It took 5 years to get through the council process.

The analysis started in 2002, 2003, and by then we already had documentation of over 70% of the quota that had that had initially been issued to residents of the 42 or eventually 45 rural communities had already been transferred out of those communities. The CQE program was meant to address that problem. It was meant to bring quota share back to those communities. It was intended to in some way provide for the continued participation of rural residents in those communities in the overall IFQ program. It's in that context that we're here today asking you to raise the individual community purchase cap.

The purchase caps were put in place because of concern at the time that there will be rapid recapitalization to come into the fishery, and that the CQEs would immediately buy a large amount of quota, and there was some sense of we needed individual community purchase caps because of equity among all the qualifying communities, so everybody would have a fair chance at the quota. In hindsight, none of that occurred. Capital was very difficult to find. The presumption that ANCSA corporations would be able to finance quota for communities was soon put aside because of issues with regard to equitable distribution of benefits to shareholders, and the CQEs had now struggled for finances. And we see in hindsight that we didn't need those limitations, that we needed to in fact have opportunities for the CQEs to expand.

And what we found when we're looking for investors or looking for people that are impact investors, we can't show them that additional 10 or 12 or 15,000 pounds of quota that would— in Old Harbor, for example, or Uzinqui would reach the cap— would have a measurable impact in the community. We can show them if we can buy 250,000 pounds that that would move the needle for the community. In my letter that I presented to the Council, I'm out of time, Madam Chair. Okay, and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fields.

Um, I'm sure there are plenty of questions. So yes, Mr. Muller.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Very polite, by the way. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fields. Um, briefly, um, you mentioned if you had time, of which you obviously didn't, you would mention the ADAC CQE. Um, And so I will just— it's kind of just a yes or no question for you here. There was, there was a couple items specific to ADAC CQE that were left out of the AP motion, residency and the, and the vessel cap. So my question to you, you support the council inserting that into this package?

Thank you, Mr. Mohler. I not only support it, I think the council has to ask the question on each of these issues, how can we make the CQEs more successful. It's a stark statement to show in that analysis that ADAC has been unable to fish their sablefish the last couple of years. Question is, how can we help them fish that? No vessel cap, no individual holding cap, no residency.

Let's move ADAC forward by relaxing these controls to help the CQE be successful. That's where I'm at, Mr. Muller. Mr. Fields, you were— I have a question for you. You were just getting into kind of the— your perspective on the background of the individual caps and why they ultimately didn't need to be in place.

I'm just wondering if there's anything that has shifted as far as the, you know, of financial barriers or that we can foresee shifting that we might want to consider if we move this forward for an analysis as far as implications to inactive CQEs right now and their ability to purchase CQE, considering, you know, that there's also an overall cap limitation. So any individual cap increase, you know, could potentially impact other CQEs that might not, you know, be participating at this point. So that's the question I ask myself as well. Is there equity allowing some CQEs to purchase more and theoretically at some level reducing the opportunity of other CQEs to participate? The reality is that even though there's been substantial opportunity In Area 3A and 3B, there's only 4 communities that have participated, and, and 3 more active than the other one.

Um, even at a 3% cap, which is a range that we would like to see in the analysis, up to 3 times the individual cap or 3% of the overall combined 3A, 3B, 2C quota, Even within that range, you're still talking about, on a theoretical construct, at least 7 communities participating, which is double the current amount that are currently participating. I've consulted with many, if not all, of the communities in 3A relative to being involved in the CQE program. I encourage them to be involved in the CQE program. Some of them have availed themselves to the halibut charter permits, those are easy to administer and don't require the infrastructure that managing quota does. But with regard to that question, Madam Chair, I think communities that aren't participating in the CQE program would be glad to see the success of the CQE program for other communities.

I also think that the regional model that's being developed in Southeast Alaska may become a template for some of the communities within the Gulf of Alaska that aren't currently participating to become part of the CQE program. Once again, the cumulative cap would then accrue to the regional CQE, and those communities would be able to avail themselves at some level of quota, even though they may not be able to purchase up to the full amount that the community— that the council eventually grants to the CQEs. I trust that answers your question. It's an issue that I'm concerned about as well, Madam Chair. Thank you for that.

Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you. I, I think— thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fields, um, and the historical perspective. I think when we look at the discussion paper and there's so many issues, um, the question I've been getting somewhat on the side is like, what are the most important issues out of this paper? And I guess I just wanted your perspective on that, or whether some of these are so interrelated that they really should move forward as a package.

Thank you. It's always fraught with concern when you prioritize other people's issues, but across the CQE program, we need to raise the individual purchase caps. It's about a 15-year cycle through the Council, a 10-year IFQ review, a couple of years after the IFQ review Now we're on the second discussion paper. It'll be another year before you make a decision, another year or 2 years for regulation to get in. 15 Years.

So we have to look out 15 years. What's going to be meaningful change for the CQE program? Number 1 is raising the individual purchase cap. Number 2 is making it easier to transfer quota. We have to have better control by the CQE of the quota throughout the season for these in-season transfers.

Those are the two priorities from my experience as a quota manager. That doesn't mean that some of the other issues aren't important. It's just that when you're looking at a 15-year time horizon, those to me are the two most important issues. The issues with regard to tendering and regard to the notice requirement prior to delivery, I forget the acronym on that, um, and those are the issues that have created the need for the CQE. It was those kind of issues that many times forced small amount quota holders to sell their quota.

Living in a rural community, had to give advance notice, had to figure out the tending, had to go to a port of landing that was— they just sold their quota share. So those are issues that help build back opportunity for rural residents to participate in the IFQ program. But in terms of a 15-year horizon for the CQEs, Madam Chair and Ms. Gimble, The issues with regard to in-season transfers and the issues relative to how much quota an individual CQ can purchase would be the primary issues from my perspective. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Steve Miner is up next, followed by Linda Benken.

Good morning, Madam Chair and council members. For the record, I'm Steve Minor. I'm Vice President of the ADAC Community Development Corporation, speaking in support of several proposed elements in the IFQ CQE package. First, on behalf of ACDC, I want to thank the Council for taking action recently on the Pacific halibut CQE regulations by removing the residency requirement and the vessel use cap. For the first time in many, many years, we're harvesting cod this— or halibut this year.

And we think that similar amendments to the sablefish side of the equation will result in the same thing. So thank you very much. As you know, that a lot of fish has been stranded in the Aleutian Islands in the last few years because of the lack of a processing facility in ADAC, which I can speak to separately if you care. But as a result, we're not meeting the objectives of the MSA or the emergency order or executive order or the CQE program itself. So we are asking you to move forward on some very targeted amendments to allow us to do what we've done in Pacific halibut and get that sablefish out of the water.

Regarding the question of CQE groups managing their own, own quota, this is critical for ADAC. In ADAC, what we have is a very remote fishery.

The Gulf enjoys a 9 to 10 month season to harvest. We have about 2 months because harvesters generally clean up all the other areas and come out to us last, and then they want to be out of there by the end of September because of harsh weather. That's just reality we live with, but our 60-day timeframe is completely different than what other CQE groups are dealing with. I also want to say on the question of in-state manage— of Sorry, of self-management of our quota. I was heavily involved in the CDQ program at its inception.

I was a business manager for many years, and for those of you who recall, early on every year the CDQ groups had to go through application for their quota for the following year. It was very expensive, very labor-intensive, and very— created a lot of acrimony between the groups as we were trying to steal each other's quota every year. The reason I mention this is when that was amended to allow the CDQ groups to operate somewhat independently and make their own business decisions, it was because this council and the agency recognized they had matured as business entities. I want to suggest that is now the same thing with the CQE program. Some of us came into this understanding how to do it, others haven't, but we have all matured to the point that let us be adults and manage our own quota.

And in particular in ADAC, where we have such a small window to get that fish out of the water. Finally, on that question, it's important to point out that vessel use caps are also vital to us.

ACDC, currently has just under 1 million pounds of sablefish IFQ because of our recent transactions. If you apply the current regulations, that's 18 vessels to harvest that at a 50,000-pound cap. There will never be an 18-vessel fleet in ADAC, let alone 18 vessels operating in the Western Aleutian Islands. And yet, we're only halfway through what we're allowed to acquire in terms of quota in that fishery. If we turn around and acquire another 900,000 pounds, explain to me any scenario where we've got 30 vessels out there harvesting for us, which is what the current regulations would require.

We did, going into this season, have pretty advanced talks with a harvester that operates out there. They were looking at seriously getting permits, getting their crew qualified so that they could help us get this out of the water. But that vessel use cap undid the entire negotiation, so please remove it. I think that concludes my comments for now. I think the underlying message is the Gulf CQEs, uh, that program is designed to retain harvesters and vessels in those communities.

For us, the CQE program was designed to bring new harvesters and build a fleet from scratch out in ADAC. And it was working right up until the closure of Golden Harvest. And we won't get too deep into that, but as you know, that was the result of a court decision to overturn this council's previous action to secure ADAC. So we're asking you to go out on a limb one more time, give us a little bit of flexibility out there, and let us get the fish out of the water and get on with our business. Finally, I want to thank Duncan Fields.

I think he did a pretty good job representing ADAC this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your testimony. Ms. Kimmel has a question. Thank you for your testimony.

My question is, there's, there's nothing considered in this paper, not that the council couldn't go there, but there's nothing considered in the paper to increase the amount of quota that, that ADAC could purchase, but what is being considered is, is removing the vessel use cap for sablefish. I'm well aware of the very difference in the biomass between halibut and sablefish in the Aleutians, but is there an ask to change or remove the halibut vessel use cap, or is that not something that's important to ACDC? Thank you, Miss Kimball, through the chair. No, you've already addressed our concerns when it comes to Pacific halibut, other than the question of the residency waiver being extended. But I think this action, if it encompasses both, removes that concern as well.

Thank you. And I think I corked Mr. Moller, so I apologize for that. Um, but I, I do want to ask about the residency requirement and there's been a continued extension of that, and I think you spoke briefly to the differences in the ADAC program versus the GOLF program, but I guess I'd want to hear a little bit more from AC/DC on whether there's any— does that undermine your goal to bring residents to the community or bring activity to the community by removing the residency requirement altogether, not just continuing to extend it? Yes. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, through the chair.

We don't believe it does. ACDC, like other CQE groups, we have creative loan programs and other incentives for local fishermen. Up until the closure of Golden Harvest, we were starting to develop a small boat fleet, but that is the key thing. It was a small boat fleet, and with the closure of the plant, you're not going to have those boats transiting all the way back to Dutch Harbor. So they simply had to relocate out of our community.

We think if we do this right and maintain those incentives that we've already got in place for harvesters, they'll come back. That's our goal. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Muller.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Miner, for your testimony here. Um, Ms. Kimball asked my question relative to, um, to the residency discussion. There's been some— I want to ask you a question relative to the hired skipper, you know, component of it in season management by the CQE.

You mentioned in your testimony that, you know, your season in the Aleutians is, you know, a fraction of the time that they may enjoy in the Gulf. 2 Months versus 9 or 10 months. So there's been some discussion at the AP relative to the council taking action on this particular provision. There's another vehicle currently being addressed at the agency, the Integrated Fisheries Application, the IFA. The AP motion suggested for different reasons that we should take it up at the council, uh, be feeling that it may be more expedient in terms of implementation.

Do you have any thoughts relative to one or the other approaches? Um, thank you, Mr. Muller. Through the chair, we would like to see the council take action. We of course all realize the resource limitations of the agency, the struggle you have with priorities, which is going to be another discussion today. But we think in our case, our ask is pretty straightforward.

There's already a precedent for almost everything we're asking for, if not everything. And we'd like it to stay in this arena and not wait for the agency, uh, and their new program. We don't know what the time frame is, and, and again, we're quite aware and quite sensitive to the resource limitations.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Linda Benken is up next, followed by Darren Mueller. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Linda Benken. I'm testifying today for the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust. I'm a founding board member, president of the trust. The trust was formed to promote access by Alaska coastal residents to local fisheries. I, I was going to just talk briefly about some of the programs that we have launched, taking on a significant amount of debt, some with grant funds, but those include a quota bank that provides fishing opportunity to residents with a focus on entry-level and second generation, a low-cost, low-risk loan program called Local Fish Fund, and in partnership with ALFA, a crew apprentice program and fishermen workshops.

To support skill building and workforce development. Despite those programs, we continued to see quota leaving remote and especially Indigenous communities. And after conducting an assessment in Southeast of these communities where we asked people if they wanted to be participants in fisheries, and if they did, what fishery they— what fisheries really mattered to them, we heard halibut, We heard yes, first of all, they wanted to be in fishing, and second, that halibut was a resource they wanted access to. We then worked with Sealaska, Spruce Root, and Central Council of Tlingit and Haida to form a regional CQE for Southeast Alaska called the Southeast Village Fisheries Collective. And again, through a combination of grants and debt, we this year purchased 16,000 pounds of halibut for 3 Southeast communities.

There's been plenty of obstacles along the way to that success, um, and the success of people fishing that quota, including the high cost of quota, lack of quota now on the market in Southeast, and sometimes some pretty confusing regulations. But I will tell you that people are really excited about the program and particularly their participation in the fisheries in this first year of operations. But because of the obstacles they have encountered, we are— have suggested a lot of the issues that are now part of the omnibus package the AP has brought forward to you. They're relatively small changes. Some of them, I understand, will take a bit of work to accomplish, but they really will have a very big impact on these communities and their ability to take advantage of the CQE program as previous testifiers have said.

I would agree with a lot of the priorities I've heard from, from Mr. Fields. Our top two would be the change to allow CQEs to manage their quota the same way we manage A shares, or the hired master assignment. It would allow us to quickly move quota from one community resident if that fisherman has some reason why they can't fish, and make sure that somebody else can get that quota caught before weather changes or the season ends in that particular community. That, we believe, will also solve the TEC and age limit issue, but that's not quite clear to us yet. I think, as you've heard from some people, in these villages, it's virtually impossible at this point for some of the people living there to acquire the 150 days in commercial fishing simply because there are not commercial fishing opportunities left.

So it has become a real barrier for some of the people that would like to fish the CQE that we've purchased. And also, we did have people apply this year from one of the communities who were under 18 That's a new barrier imposed by NMFS in recent years. We believe there's a way to have a guardian or parent sign for under 18 and solve any legal issues the, the agency might have. And again, really can make a difference for young people in these communities that want to get involved in these fisheries. Our second priority would be raising the caps.

Because the agency's determination is that a regional CQE has the exact same cap as individual CQEs, that cap is likely to become confining, particularly in Southeast where we do have a lower cap by area. We've always supported that in Southeast to make sure we maintain a relatively large deferred fleet, but as interpreted by NIMS, with a regional CQE, it creates some real limitations. So that's our second priority. Relative to increasing flexibility on these— the notice of landing and areas of landing— that's also important. I realize it has more challenges than the first two, but because there is very limited, or in some cases no processing capacity left in these CQE communities or very close to these CQE communities, and they are usually operating outside of cell service when they're fishing.

It's really difficult to comply with these regulations, get your fish caught, and get it to market. Being able to waive the notice of landing on small deliveries would support what the AP has recommended as far as looking at the up to 2,000 pounds, being able to deliver that fish to a tender that can then bring that fish back to a processing plant, these really make it possible for people in small boats to participate and safely get that fish to market. So we support looking at that. If it has to be on a different schedule, we just urge that it also continue to move ahead. Would just note that the tenders are all carrying AIS.

They can be set up to report in real time to the agency, but that VMS really is not needed since they are carrying AIS. And I'll end there because I'm out of time. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. See if there are any questions.

Yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Banken. I— on the point you made about the current regulations hindering the ability of a CQE that represents more than one community to purchase what you thought would be the use cap, I wondered if you could provide a little bit more information on that and whether that's hindering you now or whether you're just looking at future considerations. Yeah, through the Chair, thank you for the question.

So initially, my understanding and our read of the regulations that I think is backed up by what the regulations say in one place is that a regional CQE would be limited to the cap of the cumulative number of CQEs that were part, or communities that were part of that regional CQE. There's another place in the regulations that limits it to the same as the, the cap for individuals or for one CQE. And NIMPS' interpretation, after a lot of conversation, is that a regional CQE is in fact limited to the same cap as an individual CQE. It is not confining us yet, but could very soon since those caps in in 2C are quite low. For halibut right now, it's around 39,000 pounds, and we have 16,000 pounds.

So there's not a lot of headroom, and given how long these packages take to move through the system, could easily be limiting on us before that change could be made. Sorry, I misrepresented that a little bit. Some of our quotas in 3A We have a little bit more headroom in 2C, but other communities in 2C that would like to come online and an interest in purchasing more quota in each area.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Banken, just a point of clarification on your response then. So would your interest be in the council looking at the former interpretation where a cumulative cap based on the the individual communities part of a regional CQE, or is there something else within that range that you would be interested in looking at if the council moved this forward for analysis? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the— what the AP has suggested of looking at options up to 2% addresses our concerns and seems like a more straightforward solution to this CAP issue. Okay, thank you for that. I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you for joining us. Thank you.

So Darren Muller is the last testifier. D3.

Yeah, good morning. Uh, for the record, uh, my name is Darren Muller. I'm, uh, born in Kodiak, raised in Eezinki. I've been there most of my life, third generation fisherman. Um, I have 9 kids, uh, 6 of those are boys, 3 are girls.

My older boys have done and have participated in our CQ entity in Uzinky and are very proud to still continue the fishery. Fishing has been, like I say, a big part of my life and I'm hoping that it's going to continue to be part of my boys' lives. I'm just here Again, to speak on behalf of that, I think that listening to testimony before me, we are all aware of the CQE program. And as you heard and understand with our area, with the Yuzinki, Yuzinki is very, very, very active with our CQE. And, you know, we are one of the more successful CQEs, and we are a model to a lot of the other entities out there.

You know, one of the things that, you know, we hold high regard is that to be able to try to hang on to that quota and people and keep our people in our villages. As you're all aware, you know, villages are becoming extinct because of economics, education, and a lot of other things, but they all tie together. And without economics, there goes your education. You have people who need to move out. So Our CQE program is something that we hold with high regard.

I think that where we have, you know, just under 30,000 pounds of quota, we do have a number of individuals looking and do purchase our fish, that quota.

Can we fish more? We absolutely, we could fish more. We do have individuals, you know, looking to be able to be part of that. But, you know, to have a vessel out there, have one boat or two boats out there to actually make something of this, you know, you're looking at having to spend money on fuel, insurance, and everything else. So in other words, you know, Grant, you do want a good chunk of quota out there to go out there fishing.

And so to have a number of individuals out there, it really is a better, I guess, as far as economics, to have more quota. And us being limited to where we're at with the quota that we have, you know, it's only allowing us for a couple of fishermen. We have a lot of young people who would love to get out there, but, you know, you're— we're competing with, with within our own selves, and that's something that we don't— we didn't— we never intended to have that happen. Um, as, as you're all aware that, you know, we have the cap with, with what is coming to, to the ZQNDS especially for the— for our area. And, uh, you know, I'm here just to give support that I, I believe, according to the testifiers before me, um, that I also would support an increase in, uh, individual, uh, quota quotas to our communities.

I know that there's a lot of communities who are still struggling to even get on the board and even get quota. And I, I think that, you know, as one of the more successful quota entities We need to be that model. We need to find ways to work, you know, with council, with regulators, and find ways to make something work. And I believe that there are a lot of people who are still looking and seeing us as a community as a role model, and how can we do that? And the only way we're going to do that is to be able to work together.

I really think that it's something that we have to try to stay on top of. I know that the other— there's other fishing entities out there that are looking for quota as well. But again, if you look at, look at what our percentage is compared to the overall quota out there, you know, we are, we're minimal. And it's, it's, you know, where we've been in, we've been doing this now in 16 years or along that way. I think it's something that, you know, we, we know and we appreciate the ability to have this opportunity.

We thank the council, we thank the regulators for getting us to where we're at right now, but But there are things that we would love to see changes, and I know that, you know, the process is a lot longer than it should be for us because having that 10-year review and going through that whole process, it does take a burden on us as individuals because, you know, we have a lot of young people who, of course, we encourage them to go out and get their education and go out. But some of those individuals who want to stay in this community and stay fishing, And we want to give this, give them an opportunity. And, you know, salmon is not where it is, so a lot of them, you know, are looking for other things, like, and we think that, you know, halibut quota is one of them. So again, I think that's something that we would really like to see is being able to at least maybe increase some of the individual CQ quotas in between. And the second thing is also the transfer issue.

That's another issue that I think we need to address a little bit here because we have Some of the people that we have available for this are ready to go, but again, there's, you know, there's some— I think for us as a quota entity, we just want to be able to find the right things, right tools, and make that work. And the only way we're going to be able to do that is by talking and reaching across the table to our regulators. So I think that's all I have right now. Again, I support increasing the quota entities and also the higher skip higher. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I'll see if there are any questions. Yes, Mr. Moler. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Moler, for your testimony here, and congratulations on the success that your community has had with the CQE program.

My question is, Do maybe, maybe your resident fishermen already take advantage of this, but do they view the CQE, available quota, as possibly a stepping stone to assist them with buying some of their own IFQ? And again, maybe your community members already do that, but how important is your CQE for that entry-level fisherman that you may have in your community in terms of expanding their portfolio in terms of buying other IFQ?

Thank you, Mr. Moller. Through the Chair, yeah, I think that, um, I'll kind of give you a little bit of a scenario here on— and, and this is, uh, you've heard some testimony that some of the quota— some, some of these IFQ quotas have, have went back into some of the CQEs. And a prime example for Yuzinki is that we've had a number of retirees, a number of older people who have finally decided to retire. One of the things that the option was, was yes, to maybe, you know, work with individuals in the community to sell their quota to, very similar to the question you're asking, or to sell into our CQE program where that will be available for generations so that we can sort of quote unquote spread the wealth but keep it there in the community. And so that's kind of been sort of the process.

And we've had probably at least, I would say, 5 individuals, maybe 6 individuals who have actually sold, retired, and for other reasons, inheritance, for whatever reasons, have sold into RCQND. So that is the way Uzinky— that's one of the ways Uzinky has become successful is through the people of our community who have, you know, retired and kind of sold back into the CQND for, for the individuals and for people there in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mueller, for your testimony, and, uh, congratulations on the success of the CQE program in Usinky. It's very impressive. You mentioned that you have a number of younger members of your community that that have participated in the program or would like to participate in the program.

Is the current eligibility age of 18 years old, has that been a barrier to growing participation in your community?

I, you know, as one who, you know, who has a lot of kids of my own, and I've heard from them, I've heard from other individuals who are still in high school. You know, one of the things is that, you know, getting out of summertime— summertime, it's your— it's a family tradition to have your family go out, go fishing. A lot of these younger boys are— and, and ladies as well, you know, are looking today, you know what, I, I could do this, we could do this. And so I, I believe, I believe that we do have individuals who would love to do this. And I know because we have individuals who are working with their, with their uncles, with their relatives who, you know, started out, were out there, you know, 7, 8, 9 years old and are up there now, you know, 12, 14, 15, 16, perfectly eligible for this.

And, and, you know, having to be able to have that opportunity to go out there and do this is just one more way for them to be successful. Uh, I think it's something that stays positive within, you know, an individual as a young adult, uh, gives them the opportunity to do something positive with their life. And I think that, you know, having that ability to, uh, and of course, you know, having the adult supervision there is something that, that is there as well. So I, I think I would support that. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Oh, did you have something else? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So that concludes our public testimony on D3. Let's stand down for about 5 minutes and come back at 11:25 and see if the council would like to take action.

Council members, please come back to order.

So, we're ready to consider action on D3. So the plan would be, um, the council chooses to deliberate on action. We'll do that on, on D3, and then we will have our staff presentation on staff tasking, which I think is between 15 and 20 minutes, and we'll break for lunch and come back and start with public testimony on staff tasking after lunch. Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have a motion under— for D3.

The motion reads: the Community Quota Entity program was established in 2004 to mitigate the migration of halibut and sablefish quota share and thus access to the fisheries out of small rural Gulf of Alaska coastal communities. Eligible communities can form nonprofit corporations called CQEs to purchase limited amounts of Gulf of Alaska catcher vessel quota share as a long-term community asset, with the resulting annual fishing privileges leased to community residents. While the CQE program was designed to create greater access for Gulf of Alaska communities, over the past for 2 decades, the high cost of halibut IQ and administrative burden of starting and managing a CQE has limited its success. In 2014, ADAC was added to the program with different requirements for the purpose of purchasing Area 4B halibut and Aleutians Islands sablefish. The council is considering how to increase participation for active CQEs and encourage new participation without changing the total amount of cumulative quota CQEs can hold or the original intent of the program.

In addition, under the halibut and sablefish IFQ program, an individual must have at least 150 days of experience as part of a harvesting crew in any U.S. commercial fishery to be eligible to receive halibut or sablefish quota by transfer. The Council is considering allowing tendering time to count toward this requirement, similar to recent actions in other fisheries. In addition, there is no minimum age requirement in regulations to allow a person to hold quota share or the annual IFQ. Finally, the Council is considering changes to the landing requirements for IFQ fisheries to lower the burden for smaller rural operators. This set of actions relative to the IFQ and CQE programs is intended to facilitate improved access to the halibut and sablefish resource, or in the case of a minimum age requirement, clarify rules for the affected public and NIMS.

It is also intended to meet the intent of the Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness EO, EO-14276, by reducing costs. Alternative 1, no action. Alternative— action alternatives are not mutually exclusive.

Did I get that right? Alternative 2, changes to transfer eligibility certificate requirements. Option 1, establish a minimum age of options 14, 16, or 18 in regulation to be eligible to receive IFQ or quota share by transfer to replace the interim policy of 18. Option 2, allow time tendering in any U.S. commercial fishery to count toward the 150-day TEC requirement to receive annual IFQs. IFQ.

Alternative 3, changes to unloading and landing requirements for halibut and sablefish IFQ deliveries. Option 1, allow IFQ to be received by a tender vessel with a registered buyer permit for delivery to a buying station or registered buyer in a port. Option 2, remove the prior notice of landing requirement for small IFQ deliveries. Suboptions: less than or equal to 500 pounds, less than or equal to 1,000 pounds, less than or equal to 2,000 pounds.

Alternative 4, increase the amount of halibut quota an individual Gulf of Alaska CQE can hold. No change to the limit on the total amount of quota that can be held cumulatively by all CQEs. Clarify regulations such that a CQE representing more than one community may hold up to the combined community level cap for each individual community it represents. Area 2C pool, Option 1, 1.5% of the 2C halibut quota share pool. Option 2, 2% of the 2C held quota share pool, Area 2C, 3A, and 3B combined.

Option 3 is 1% of that combined halibut quota share pool. Option 4 is 2%. Option 5 is 3%. Alternative 5, allow CQEs to assign and manage quota in season through the use of the hired master system, authorizing one or more individuals to land CQE-held halibut or sablefish to be debited against the CQE holdings In the Gulf program, only residents of the community or communities represented by the CQE continue to be eligible to fish CQE-derived quota. Alternative 6: Modify requirements for the ADAC CQE.

Option 1: Remove the 50,000-pound sablefish vessel use cap for the Aleutian Islands CQE program. Option 2: Remove the 50,000-pound cap on individuals leasing IFQ derived from the Aleutian Islands CQE. And Option 3: Remove the residency requirement for harvesting Aleutian Islands CQE-held quota. And with a second, I will speak to it. Thank you for the second, Mr. Muller.

Ms. Kimball, thanks. Thank you for the second, Mr. Muller. Um, apologies for the long purpose and need statement, but this is, as staff mentioned, more of an omnibus amendment. So I was trying to respond to all of the portions of this analysis. I think it's good to step back a little bit that this is a program whose roots are in allowing a entity, a nonprofit entity, to hold quota, purchase quota, not be given quota, purchase quota on behalf of that community, and then provide those assets long-term in the community and provide benefits in the Gulf program for community residents, in the ADAC program to the community at large.

I think we haven't talked about this in a long time, so we forget what— whose communities these are. We've been talking about communities, but these are very small communities. The eligibility requirement for these communities was not being on the road system, not being connected to a larger community through the road system, being— having fewer than 1,500 residents, and having previous participation in halibut and sablefish. And so overall, I think the need for some of these changes is really back to, are we going to make this program work for the communities that we set it up for, or are we going to continue to say it's not working to its full potential and CQEs just aren't doing their job. I think there are some changes here that are really about making it work for the type of community in which it was intended to benefit, and that's what I've tried to capture in the alternatives.

Just very briefly, the alternatives 2 and 3— I, apologies for those trying to look at the AP motion at the same time because I didn't structure it exactly the same way. Alternatives 2 and 3 are not just specific to CQEs, they are for the entire IFQ program. Alternative 3 in particular, changes to unloading and landing requirements for halibut and sablefish IFQ deliveries. I think we heard in staff tasking that's IFQ, CDQ deliveries, both. For the change to transfer eligibility requirements, I did put in a range of 14 to 18 in regulation.

Obviously we have an interim policy by NMFS and the agency's been asking for a while for the council to put it in regulation. I did have the lower end higher than the AP motion, just Folks are referencing back to that motion. I was using the discussion paper, um, and really the piece of the discussion paper that looked at the employment of minors between 14 and 16 is allowed by federal regulation as long as it meets certain criteria. So I was using that at the lower bound at this time. I think if we get continued testimony about the need to make that bound even lower when we get the analysis back, we can take that into consideration.

But as a starting point, I made the bounds between 14 and 18 years old. I don't think I need to speak too much to the tendering, allowing tendering to count. We've done that in the crab fishery very recently. I modified the language similar to what staff had suggested to say in any U.S. commercial fishery, and I think we've heard testimony at this meeting and previous meetings about the need to provide, like, another opportunity to show that you're capable of receiving quota by transfer and fishing quota safely.

I really struggled with alternative 3 on the change to the unloading and landing requirements, and not because I don't understand the issue or the problem, but just because of the potential, you know, OLE and other concerns. First, to speak to the allowing IFQ to be received by a tender vessel, the reason I kept this in is I— we heard it in testimony at this meeting, and we've heard it before, like, are we going to continue to create a program that doesn't really work for the type of community we're talking about? And this is a real issue for those small communities. How are they going to use a small vessel in a remote area? And they're not going to land that in Sitka.

They're not going to land that in Ketchikan. They need another opportunity closer by for safety reasons. And it just makes sense to continue to keep this in the analysis and look at it a little bit further. I feel like if it becomes a big obstacle and a, and a block, I guess, for the rest of the package, then we could certainly consider taking that out. And I, I do welcome more OLE input on this issue and was very glad to have Mr. Perry provide input today.

On the prior notice of landing requirement, I recognize that the analysis or the paper showed us that about half of the trips are in that category, but it was still a very small amount of quota. And so I did leave the bounds of the options for this at, at less than or equal to 2,000 pounds. But provided a lower bound as well, given that some council members, I think, were uncomfortable with looking at just a 2,000-pound limit.

I think for Alternative 4, I mean, we heard this, um, in testimony, I think, from every testifier that we heard, uh, from the Gulf about the time is now, uh, to consider allowing those CQEs that have really made use of the program and actually have more individual residents and kids ready to fish more quota on behalf of their community, that it is the time to say, let's increase the amount that that CQE can hold in order to make that opportunity a reality. I think it's also necessary when you think about trying to make a trip worthwhile, and we heard about that, and those on the water understand what it costs to do a trip nowadays, especially with fuel costs. And for those that are trying to get financing as a long-term asset for a community, it's not going to be 3,000 pounds. They need a little bit bigger amount of quota. So this allows the council to look at doing that and consider those increases.

Um, I did also in this Alternative 4, um, try to put some clarification of what I think is currently in regulations, um, that a CQE representing more than one community can hold up to the cap level for each community it represents. I think that is a very logical outcome. It's exactly what the original intent was of the original analysis. In the original regulations. I'm a little sad that that's not what's in regulations, actually, but this would clarify that that was how that was intended, and I think it just makes sense.

Alternative 5, I think we heard from everyone that is— that's really one of the most important parts of this, to make the quota be able to be used in season, and I haven't really heard a good reason why a CQE as a nonprofit entity with holdings that are linked to the community in perpetuity would have to do it any different than an A shareholder or any different than a CDQ group. So I, I know that this will probably be the bigger lift in terms of implementation, but I didn't want to drop this, and I want to see if this approach is possible, whether it's through reprogramming our current system or through linking up with the new changes in the, in the agency's changes to that. System. I didn't obviously try to dictate how that gets done, but I don't want to lose track of Alternative 5. I think it's one of the most important ways that we can get quota used.

And then finally, the ADAC CQE. I just think we can't lose sight of the fact that this program, when we added ADAC, when, when council added ADAC into this program, it really had different, a different purpose. I think we tried a residency requirement for ADAC, but the original purpose of the program was really how do we get more quota used around ADAC. It wasn't included in the CDQ program. How do we provide an opportunity for people to either move back to ADAC or just have economic activity that would link those benefits to the community of ADAC, much more like CDQ than CQE in my mind.

I think removing the vessel use cap as a practical reality for that community makes a lot of sense. I think in Option 2, removing the, the cap on individuals leasing IFQ, that might not be necessary at all if we do Alternative 5, but I couldn't guarantee we would get to Alternative 5 in the end, and so I added Option 2 to ensure that ADAC doesn't have to put 13 people on one boat in order to fish their community holdings. And then finally, I don't know council members' level of level of comfort with Option 3, but every time we try to extend the waiver to residency requirement for the ADAC community quota entity, we have to do a regulation. I'm taking that off the table. That's my proposal, and, and waiving that residency requirement and really looking at the ADAC CQE for the way it was intended to benefit the community, whether that's non-residents fishing that quota and bringing that economic activity into ADAC supporting a potential processor there.

All of that, I think, is really making this program look more like CDQ than it is CQE. But these are the things I'd like to propose and see if that works better for ADAC. Um, I'm sure I did not address a lot of things. I'd be glad to answer questions, but I think this is the time to put this forward and get it in the queue. I'd remind council members it is in our EO work plan, and I think it will both reduce some burdens for mainly smaller rural operators, which I think is a worthy goal.

And I think it will try to make a program that we put on the books over 20 years ago a much more workable program for the people we're trying to benefit.

Thank you for the motion and rationale, Ms. Kimball. Yes, Mr. Kerlin has a question. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, Ms. Kimball, for the motion. Obviously a lot of components here, so appreciate all your attention to detail on the different facets of this.

I want to ask, you spoke to Alternative 3 Option 1 a little bit in your, in your rationale, and I wonder if you could just clarify if your intent there was to allow IFQ to be delivered to a tender vessel at a location other than a designated port in Area 2C without a PNOl, and that the PNOl requirements would continue to apply to tender vessels when delivering to another registered buyer?

I think so. Let me see if I can capture what you're asking. This was not limited to Area 2C. I just want to point that out. You said Area 2C, so I want to clarify that.

But the idea was to allow IFQ to be received, yes, to be delivered to a tender vessel not, not within a registered port area, yes. So that was your first question, and then you could choose Option 1 or Option 2, or you could choose them separately or together. So I don't know if I got to your second question about Option 2 does look at just removing the prior notice of landing requirement for small deliveries regardless of where they might be delivered.

Did I answer your question? I think that covers it. Thank you. Thank you.

Just a point of clarification, but there's still a, a volume or poundage number threshold. So the, the tender would have to have less than 2,000 pounds under the highest limit to, um, to really for that Option 2 to be applicable.

I'm looking at Option 1 and Option 2 as potentially being mutually exclusive, that you could choose just one or the other. Okay. Thank you, Miss Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Miss Kimball, for the motion. And related to that, I'm thinking back to the staff presentation and your exchange with Mr. Perry specifically. And so I'm wondering— thank you for clarifying, um, or thank you for your response to Mr. Kerlin's motion, because it was my understanding that under Alternative 3, uh, the options are not mutually exclusive. We could pick one or both. And so would it be your expectation for the analysis, again, much like your, your exchange, following up on your exchange with Mr. Perry, to think about, um, I think you, you were specifically speaking with him about potential additional enforcement costs that would be incurred from this, this alternative?

And I just wanted to confirm, and I think you just confirmed it, that the analysis would look at the potential combined effect to enforcement costs and any other impacts that would result from if we selected both options 1 and 2. Yes, thank you for the multiple questions on this alternative. The, the intent is that you could choose option 1, you could, or you could choose option 2, or you could choose both in combination. And I, I do think there are some very different cost implications by choosing both versus just option 2. So I do assume that would come out in the analysis.

Thank you. Mr. Carlin. Thanks, Madam Chair. Ms. Kimball, another question under Alternative 4. Would the— let's see, the third sentence clarify regulations such that a CQE representing more than one community may hold up to the combined community-level cap?

I'm not sure I'm following the combined— the word combined there, what your intent is. I think you just mean up to the community level cap. Is that correct? Thank you for the question. This would be a really important part to be clear on.

I meant if a CQE is— and so there could be an amendment if you think there's clearer language, I would appreciate that. But if a CQE is representing two communities, They could hold up to 3% of the 2C halibut quota share pool under Option 1.

It makes no sense to me that we would— we would— I'll explain it a little bit, but why we would encourage people to do a regional CQE and lower administration costs across the board, but then allow them to hold much less quota than a CQE. Should if they're representing more than one community. So it is that the combined part was just supposed to be you can add that up if you represent 5 communities, it's 5 times that cap.

Mr. Muller.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, for the motion. Regarding your problem statement, you have a statement in here about when the ADAAC CQE was incorporated into the program and you use a term with— into the program with different requirements. Throughout the expanded discussion paper, there were multiple examples of the differences between the ADAC CQE and the GOLF CQE, and I'm making an assumption that the different requirements is incorporating those nuanced differences in the problem statement. So this leads to my question on, on Alternative 6, Option 3, where we heard public testimony relative to the nuance, the difference between maybe the Gulf CQEs and the ADAC CQE and the lack of a processor out there.

Thus, you know, the request for the residency requirement being asked for and approved by this council over the years, and I appreciate you, I appreciate you including it in your motion here. So the, the residency requirement, removing that for the CQE only in ADAC, is a, is your attempt to, to recognize the differences Notwithstanding that we heard public testimony that when there was a processor out there and the local fleet was being built, um, uh, was only allowed or only, um, came about because it was a processor to accommodate the local fleet. But your option 3 here, in terms of removing the residency requirement here, is again your attempt to, um, to recognize those two factors relative to the, to the conditions in the Aleutian Islands and ADAC. Is that correct? Yes, thank you.

That is correct. I think it's a practical reality for ADAC, and I do think it really aligns with the purpose of the program more similarly to CDQ than to CQE at this point. So yes.

Any further questions on the motion?

Any comments on the motion?

Mr. Muller.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Kimball, again for the motion. I think with the questions around the table here, with clarifying, clarifying questions and stuff, I think the, I think the motion is responsive. I think it will give us down the road a better opportunity to, you know, to make some adjustments to the program and offer up opportunity as maybe originally intended by the CQE. I think an important component of your motion is the ability to do in-season management on their own. We heard public testimony that, that, you know, the CQE organizations are to use their public testimony, mature, and that they should have the ability to do in-season management on their own.

We heard specific, you know, testimony relative to a, you know, a 2-month season in ADAC versus maybe a longer time period for the other CQEs. So it's incredibly important to not only all CQEs, we heard through public testimony, but I think real critical for the ADAC, ADAC CQE, where it only has a 2-month window of harvestability out there, just based on how the fleet currently operates. And we already addressed this, but the, you know, the removal of the vessel cap We heard public testimony talk about, you know, the success that we've seen in the halibut, in the halibut CQE out there where fish was finally removed this year and it hasn't happened in a long time. So I think that component of your motion is certainly, you know, reacting to requests from the public and the reality that we see out in at least in the Aleutians.

Um, so with that, um, Madam Chair, I think, uh, I think this is a well-crafted, um, motion of which, um, I will be supporting. And thank you, Miss Kimball, for it.

Sorry, I forgot to ask for amendments before comments. Sorry about that, Mr. Muller.

Seeing none, um, any further comments?

Okay, um, thank you for the motion, Ms. Kimball, and all the work that you put in. Um, I'd also like to just briefly commend all of those leaders who have, um, been championing the CQE program. Um, and it's really exciting to see, uh, some, um, regional structure taking place in, in Southeast right now. Um, I think we've heard a lot about the unrealized benefits of of CQE during this meeting and over the years and how important of a tool it is to ensure fisheries access in our small rural cultural communities that are off the road system. So I think the motion really identifies a lot of incremental ways to improve upon the program and really appreciate Ms. Kimball's efforts in bringing those all together in a motion.

So Thank you very much. So with that, I'll see if there are any objections to the motion. Okay, seeing none, that motion passes without objection.

So we are now ready, I think, for our— we're going to do our intro presentation to staff tasking. Um, I'll be closing public testimony sign-up after this presentation, and then we will break for lunch and be picking up public testimony, um, when we return. So depending on how long this will take, I'll, I'll announce the return time for public testimony, but it'll be after lunch. But please do sign up before the end of Ms. Evans' report if you would like to testify.

Okay, good morning. 3 Minutes left of morning. Good morning. Um, and this is a staff presentation on eStaff tasking. So there are 2 elements where agenda structured.

We have two actions, the prioritization discussion returning from the, from the B reports as E1 and E2, our normal agenda items for staff tasking, reviewing committees, new business, and tasking. And so I just wanted to provide a short recap of our discussion before you go into your deliberations about prioritization, and then I'll walk through the, the regular staff tasking stuff as well.

So we left our— the discussion in B reports with the staff recommendation for possible action at staff tasking being these 5 items. The first 2 dealing with the discretionary items, prioritizing the items that the council has tasked already and curating that list of tasking that we see in our 3-meeting outlook. An action, or potential action rather, to affirm or provide input to NIMS on their implementation priorities. And then two council process changes that might help to allow your prioritization to have more impact by changing how we think about staff tasking. And I'll just have like one slide just to recap briefly those three things on each of those three things.

So thinking about the scope of council task actions, when we talked about this in B reports and in the discussion paper, we really tried to divide up the council— the actions that are reflected on the council's three meeting outlook, which are the things that you've tasked us Differentiating those things that are required, harvest specifications, and one of the periodic items that you currently see on the 3-Meeting Outlook, which is the EFH 5-year review. Those actions that are routine, so looking at B reports, and then the monitoring reports would be the annual deployment plan and the annual report that you get, and then the staff tasking agenda item. And then everything else is in that discretionary actions category. There are 21 items. In Table 2 when you look at our 3-meeting outlook.

And so we had provided information in the discussion paper for some different ways for you to think about that, or think about your priorities in terms of their ability to provide an impact, but also to think about it in the context of legal or kind of executive considerations, like whether that's something that's reflected on the Council's Executive Order 14276 work plan. And also capacity and logistics constraints, just understanding that we are— some of those actions you've invested time in already, either through our staff time or through your council agenda time, whereas others are not yet started.

We also— I just want to reiterate here the caveat. I know I said this during the B reports, but that we will continue to move forward all of those task actions to the extent that we can, optimizing our staff capacity. But your priorities are really helpful to us, and when we do come up with those bottlenecks on, on staff capacity especially, and agenda time capacity as well, trying to think through, uh, understanding from you what you want us to see first when it comes to a choice. Um, and then specific to the, I, the potential action to see whether there are items to remove off the list, um, again, no judgment on the merit, but we had identified 3 items that you might want to consider doing that for, just given the circumstances of, of where we are today.

This slide is really just reminding you that the— in the NIMS B2 report, there was a section on page 3 of the B2 report that identified NIMS rulemaking priorities for FY '27. So this is just that same text pulled directly from the B2 report that Ms. Harrington walked through. And so an opportunity at this staff to ask me if you want to make a comment on that back to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

And then the third set of actions are the council process changes. This is the exact same slide that I showed in, in the B1 report, but just looking at the two actions to think about how we do staff tasking, and particularly the component of that that is taking up new business, um, whether we continue to do that every meeting or whether we target specific meetings in the year to take up new business. And are you interested in committing to an annual prioritization process? So taking this process that we're doing here at this meeting, but replicating that on an annual basis.

The one other thing I wanted to highlight from the B reports is specific to the executive order and the letter that we did receive from the NIMS Assistant Administrator identifying regional priorities, some of which are for the Council and some of which are for the agency or for the regional office. But there were 4 items that fall within our purview of action items for this Council, and we had talked at B reports about potentially writing a response letter to the agency with respect to how the Council is responding to that. So if you were to be interested in pursuing that, it would be helpful to perhaps have a little conversation around these 4 items.

So then switching gears to the information that you always get at staff tasking, that first— so this is in the memo that's provided and posted online for committee and planning membership. We do have a call for nominations open that will close on October 31st. That's for the SSC and advisory panel members for 2027 and does include the AP tribal member seat, and you'll make a decision about that at the December Council meeting. Just noting that during this meeting you did receive a request from your Charter Halibut Management Committee to solicit for a membership vacancy for an Area 2C member. And then, as we talked about it in the ED report, there were 4 nominations for plan team members for you to consider.

Highlighting this table for you that's also in the memo, we always try to put in front of you. When we know we are planning to have upcoming committee meetings so you have a sense of what the proposed agenda topics are for those committee meetings and planning meetings. To the best of our ability, these would be the draft topics that those committees will be taking up between now and the December Council meeting.

And then a note on the terms of reference. There's a note in the staff tasking memo identifying that we have as a staff are intending to work through all of our terms of reference. The Council asked us a year or two ago to go through the process of establishing terms of reference for all of our Council committees, which we did. But we have noticed since then that there are some clarification, minor clarifications for the most part, that we can improve just for clarity for the public and consistency. So we're going to be— you're going to be seeing those Minor revisions come forward to you for the most part when those committees meet and provide those— review those drafts and include those back for your approval.

At executive session, the Council did review and approve two terms of reference for committees that are Council member only committees. So the Executive Finance Committee and the Legislative Committee terms of reference, the approved versions of those are posted in the e-agenda, to the e-agenda rather. And the Council also asked us, as we're looking through this process of revising terms of reference, to provide, to consider opportunities for more public input at the Enforcement Committee when we review those terms of reference. So we will take that into account and report back to you. As we move forward.

And the last component here looks ahead to the— normally at this meeting we bring back to you, or this part of the meeting, we bring back to you a revised 3-meeting outlook, at least a draft of that, so you can see the 3-meeting outlook projected in this case for December, February, and May. Because you're having this prioritization discussion, we wanted to hold off doing that because I think some of your prioritization discussion will have a direct relevance on how we plan the rest of the meetings for this year. And so I'm just focusing here on the information that's in the one that's posted, which is December and February. So just a few comments about those two upcoming meetings. For December, the Please note that the dates for the December meeting are a little bit different than normal.

The SSE is meeting for 4 days, which means that we have delayed the start of the AP meeting and also the start of the Council meeting because they will be dealing with specifications, and the time that the SSE requires to be able to produce that full report for, for the AP and the Council will need us to give them a little bit more time to do that. There's also a Council reception planned for Thursday, December 3rd. We've talked about that in the past. Just highlighting that as part of our December agenda. There is a preliminary draft of the December schedule posted if you want to take a look at that, and there's not a lot of room for us to make changes to that December schedule at this point.

Just the time it takes to kind of gear staff up. We've been planning ahead for the materials that you'll see in December, and, you know, most of our deadlines for getting those documents out are within the next few weeks here. But highlighting for you that we do have, we will be planning to take up Cook Inlet Salmon specifications in February as we normally do, but because of some specifics about the requirements for issuing proposed specifications, there is a council-only agenda item to look at Cook Inlet proposed specifications on the December council agenda. So that's a, a new addition that you hadn't seen before. So just highlighting that for you.

Um, the, the SSE will do their full review of the safe report, the complete safe report, um, in February, and the council will take the action based on that information in February as we have planned. So the February meeting is also in Anchorage at the Marriott. Um, one of the things that is currently on the schedule for February is this next review, initial review of the Gulf Tanner crab analysis. And the, uh, when we talked about that at the last meeting, there was some discussion about whether staff would be able to make all the revisions that had been asked for by the council in time to make that February, what we were planning then for a February review. Um, we have, uh, our staff have worked on that since then, and they do intend to bring back the, the revisions, uh, on that schedule.

So planning for February from an analytical perspective, we were able to meet that deadline. There was a request from the SSC to look at specifics about modeling fleet displacement scenarios, and that quantitative modeling is not something that's practical for us to be able to do within this timeframe. I think you did have some acknowledgment of that when we talked about that last June, but Just wanted to highlight that, that, that would not be part of the analysis, but the remaining parts of the analysis are still moving forward as planned. But the, the counterpart to that is that as we look at what is currently listed on our agenda for February, the items that we would normally send to the SSC for their review exceed the time available in February for the SSC meeting. There are 4 items that would be kind of SSC, natural SSC items.

So Cook Inlet salmon specifications, some methodology updates for the EFH fishing effects model that allows that EFH 5-year review to move forward. There's several iterative steps before the final report to the Council, and one of them is some feedback from the SSC. So that had been planned for February 2027. And then two initial review analyses for Gulf tanner crab and Bering Sea herring PSC limits. So it— perhaps your prioritization conversation will help us to determine scheduling for these different items.

But just as it is right now, we just wanted to highlight for you that those— the SSC schedule does not allow them to take up all 4 of those items. And then we'll, we'll hear back from you in your deliberations and adjust accordingly.

And so this is just— I'm not planning to walk through the 3-meeting outlook. This is the same version that is posted. But if you have any questions available for that, And that concludes my staff report, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Evans, for the overview. See if there are any questions.

I'm sure we'll have questions as we're going through our deliberations too, if folks don't have any. Ms. Baker, do you have one now? Okay, okay. So, um, I think Ms. Baker and Mr. Jones have a bit of a briefing for us before we break for lunch.

Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, I just wanted to give a quick update on the tasking that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of— Alaska Department of Fish and Game received in December 2025. This tasking was prompted by the Kayasek Walrus Commission to follow up with representatives from the Kayasek Walrus Commission to review available information and data on walrus populations, habitat, prey use, and stressors around Round Island and Bristol Bay region and bring back the most useful and relevant information identified in these discussions to the council with the intention of informing the council discussion about next steps to address concerns about the potential impacts of the Federal Yellowfin Sole Fishery on walrus populations in the Bristol Bay region. The— briefly, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Alaska Marine Mammals Management Office takes a cooperative partnership and ecosystem approach to walrus management and has been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Kayasek Walrus Commission Our responsibilities include conservation and management of Pacific walrus. We work with regulations regarding Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

We conduct research with the USGS and other partners to advance scientific knowledge and promote the conservation of the walrus population and monitor harvest and support co-management relationships with the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Kayasek Walrus Commission. For a shared vision of sustainable subsistence harvest and conservation. And under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produced a walrus literature review posted under B7 on this meeting agenda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. Ms. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Jones. And just following up on that, I appreciate that information relative to the specific testimony that the council received in, in December 2025 from Kayasek Walrus Commission representatives.

We just have noted since that time and, and are working through that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ADFNG entered into a cooperative agreement with the Eskimo Walrus Commission and Kayasek Walrus Commission to govern the subsistence walrus hunt on Round Island, and those are the specific issues that concerns about walrus availability for that hunt is what was brought to the council and potential council-managed fishery impacts on that. And so just to follow up, this past September, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and AD and FNG representatives to the council met with the Kayasek Walrus Commission chair and other commission representatives to essentially follow up on those concerns expressed to the council. Those concerns relate to the, to potential impacts of commercial fishing and vessel activity in the Togiak Bay, Round Island area, and as Mr. Jones said, particularly the yellowfin sole fishery, potential impacts on walrus populations in the Bristol Bay region.

In that September discussion, all participants recognized that the, our agencies and the council are in our busy meeting season season per se. And so we intend to continue discussions over the coming months to really develop a clearer path forward to clarify the Walrus Commission's concerns and requests. And it is anticipated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ADFNG, and representatives from the Koyaanisq'olrist'komission would be prepared to provide a more comprehensive report to the council ideally in February 2027. So really, the, the point of our update here is to essentially notify the council and make that request of you, Madam Chair, and the executive director, potentially to make time for that report, uh, as appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baker.

I think that is definitely something we can accommodate. Thank you. Okay, um, with that, uh, so it looks like everyone waited to testify for the end of the meeting here. We have 25 people signed up. Um, we just ask, um, any members of the public who did testify on specific issues in B report, um, there's, uh, you know, we, we have taken note of those testimonies, so, um, hoping to hear new information and staff tasking.

Um, we will try our best to get through all the testifiers. I know we've been talking about scheduling and some folks have already rearranged their travel for this evening. Um, but please come to me after, uh, after we break here and we can discuss further. Uh, let's come back at, um, 1:20 and we will begin public testimony. Thank you.

Welcome back, everyone. Um, so we are ready to begin public testimony on staff tasking. Um, I did not account for, um, having 26 testifiers. Um, that's my fault. I think this was a rather late meeting, but we're— we will try to make it through public testimony, um, and we'll do our best.

And hopefully be able to get to deliberations this late this afternoon or early evening, but we will— yep, we'll see how this goes. Individuals and organizations will have 3 minutes, and associations and— or sorry, individuals and companies 3 minutes, associations and organizations will have 6 minutes. Please do Be mindful of the timer in front of you, and because of the number of people, I will have to be pretty strict on, on our time limits this afternoon. So we'll begin with Phil Powell, followed by James Kearns.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Council members. Thank you. My name is Phil Powell. I'm General Counsel for Global Seas. I'm here to renew a request we first made in June, that the Council task staff with preparing a focused discussion paper describing the existing legal and regulatory pathway for an additional AFA inshore processor permit.

I want to be clear about what we are and what we are not asking for. We are not asking the Council today to issue a permit. Select a processor, choose a community, conduct an economic analysis, or begin a rulemaking. We are asking for the antecedent step to find how the pathway already contained in federal law is supposed to work practically. That matters because the authority already exists.

AFA Section 210 and 50 CFR Section 679.4 contemplate additional processing entry under specified circumstances. But there's very little practical guidance explaining how a proposal gets initiated, what showing is required, what standards the council would apply, what role NIMS plays, or what steps follow a favorable council recommendation. We've tried to understand whether an existing latent permit provides an alternative route. What we learned from NIMS is that a permit alone cannot simply be purchased and moved. Prospective entrant generally has to acquire the facility, which the permit is attached to before it can even seek an amendment.

And NIMS cannot provide advanced or conditional approval of a hypothetical relocation. That creates a basic investment problem. A company may have to buy the asset before it can know whether the permit can be used, where the processing capacity is actually needed. There's also a broader reason that this deserves attention. The relevant question is not simply how much physical nominal processing capacity exists on paper.

Facility count is not necessarily buyer count. Capacity may be constrained by ownership, cooperative delivery commitments, geography, scheduling, other fisheries, and also high switching costs. What matters to catcher vessels is effective competitive processing capacity, whether there's a commercially practical independent buyer available when fish need to be delivered. That affects competition, resilience, and ultimately the ability to harvest the resource efficiently. In 2012— or I'm sorry, I apologize, 2025— the inshore sector left approximately 7% of its Bering Sea pollock allocation unharvested, and in 2026 has again presented substantial operational challenges.

While certainly caused by multiple factors, additional processing flexibility could help the fleet harvest earlier, improve delivery flexibility, and reduce exposure to periods in areas of elevated bycatch risk. We're not asking the Council to decide those merits today. We're asking the— asking staff to tell the Council and the public what process is the triggering conditions, required information governing standards, available permit structures, respective Council and NPS roles, and the sequence that would follow a favorable recommendation. This is a discrete descriptive ask, and it can be staged without alternative analysis, NEPA, economic analysis, or rulemaking. With that, I, I think it's a, a modest ask with potentially impactful, uh, results, and I, and I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Yes, um, Mr. Bowers has a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Powell, the, the NEMS B1 report describes the two specific conditions that, uh, under which a new AFA permit could be considered. And I guess the way I look at this, you know, a person wishing to receive a new permit would apply to National Marine Fisheries Service.

The agency would evaluate whether or not those two conditions have been met and then bring it to the council for comment, similar to the process we use for an EFP. Is that what you had envisioned here? The law and regulation both use the term "may," which is discretionary. And I think from a private business perspective, we'd have to engage in quite a bit of feasibility studies and investment strategies to even get to the point where we would think about that. And so understanding what those minimal thresholds would be such that we wouldn't find ourselves having undertaken significant investment and used our own, you know, political capital with potential business partners or get communities' hopes up without that legal certainty.

It creates what you describe as kind of a chicken and egg problem, as I've identified it. And so understanding those minimum thresholds that, that move the needle from a discretionary may to a likelihood to give us some sort of business certainty and allow us to engage in realistic business, business study feasibility studies in a responsible way that's not based entirely on assumptions is what I'm after. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Paul. Um, I'm still— I guess I'm still, uh, kind of hung up on, uh, Mr. Bauer's questions a little bit, or question a little bit, because I, I read the, the same report, and even though there's May language, I'm not sure what else you would want us to be looking at as far as criteria and what that would be based off from at this point. So if you could expand on that, that would be helpful. Well, sure. And in my letter, I list the— if I could pull it up— I list the particular things that I'd be asking be described.

In addition to those initial things such as like the procedural steps, would it just be submitting an application? What does an application look like? What information would the Council be looking at? What are the evidentiary standards? How far along would those those pieces of information need to be for the council to even make a decision?

Because I could write up a prospective pie-in-the-sky proposal right now, but I don't think it'd be an honest or fair use of the council's time. So what would be those thresholds to— for you to even consider that? What are the range of the permit structures? Because the regulation also envisions that there could be different structures, there could be different qualifications, there could be different restrictions. Uh, understanding the entire environment would be necessary, I think, for proper business planning.

And that's what I'd be looking for.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much.

So James Kearns is up next, followed by Penelope Hoff. Yeah, Madam Chair and Council, thank you again for the opportunity to comment. My name is James Kearns, testifying for Halibut Forever. And in respect for your request that we don't just do the same report again, or the same testimony, uh, we, we just ask that you make a motion, or somebody on the council make a motion, to at least analyze a recreational allocation of the halibut TAC that is an annual average of the last 26 years of annual recreational removals, both by guided and unguided anglers, which would not include any commercial or subsistence removals. And further, that the analysis determine what measures would be required to keep the recreational fishery within that allocation and maintain a 1 fish per day of any size recreational bag limit for all recreational anglers.

And, and then of course do this for both Area 2C and 3A separately. And then the measures to be analyzed would or should be: 1, annual limits; 2, changes in season lengths and times; and 3, day closures. Additionally, we would encourage an analysis, or to analyze the value that that change would have on controlling, or an expanding— excuse me, on controlling the expanding do-it-yourself rental unguided effort that we're all kind of concerned about. We also, we also ask that you have staff analyze the effect on the CHP fleet of a prohibition on leasing non-transferable CHPs. And finally, we ask that you have them analyze the results of zero GAF and only the current allowable compensated transfers of commercial IFQ into the RQE and how that would impact the recreational allocation we propose and the measures needed to stay within the allocation that has a 1 fish of any size daily bag limit.

So if you have any questions, I'll take them. But thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Kern. I'm not seeing any questions. Thank you for joining us. Truly. Penelope House followed by Steve Minor.

Penelope's not on. Okay, we'll circle back to Penelope.

Steve Minor followed by Julie Kavanaugh.

Steve's not in the room. Okay, we'll circle back to Steve.

Julie Cavanaugh followed by Lauren Hines.

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. Chair and members of the council, my name is Julie Cavanaugh.

I live in Kodiak, Alaska, and my family has participated in state and federal fisheries since the early 1980s. We have several boats operating in the under-60 pot cod fleet as well as one vessel tendering in that fishery. This testimony is in response to the October 1st in-season notice for non-CDQ Pacific cod Bering Sea closure anticipated for the end of this month. Interruptions in— interruptions to the Bering Sea region for the under-60 pot cod harvesters has become a recurring problem since 2020. Our operation take— operations take months to plan and prepare crews, markets, and tender services.

Access to Aleutian Islands quota is defined by Stellar SeaLine closures that puts us 268 miles from a processor. Please notice the attached image. We are asking the council to consider a path forward that could provide an uninterrupted Bering Sea Pacific cod fall opportunity for the under-60 fleet. A white paper briefly outlining the issue would require minimal resources, and the paper should include a brief outline describing this recent trend, what the causations are, and potential solutions. I would also like to support the Tanner crab protection action to remain on the February calendar.

The majority of the affected users are from the Kodiak area, the Gulf of Alaska, and find it difficult to travel to the lower 48 in June. Most of our people are getting ready for salmon— directed salmon fishing and/or tendering. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Kavanaugh.

I just wanted to clarify, um, I know that you tried to get through your testimony pretty quickly, but your, your primary concern is in those years where the, the Bering Sea, um, cod opportunity is, is closed off early because TAC has been achieved, that it's, it's limiting opportunity, B season opportunity for the under-60 fleet?

Yeah, the total Bering Sea-directed cod catch is taken, and so there's an apportionment that is set for the Aleutian Islands. So I believe the clarification is that all sectors are fishing— most all the sectors are fishing in the Bering Sea, and if they all continue there and the quota gets eaten up that's apportioned for the Bering Sea, and anybody that wants to continue to fish has to move to the Aleutian Islands. And the trend has been that other sectors that could have their markets or process their own fish aren't moving over before that quota is taken, and that would force these small boat, under 60, pot cod guys that have remaining quota to travel to the Aleutian Islands area to finish the quota that they have been given.

And we're looking for a solution to that, not some type of split of our federal, initial federal quota. We feel like that would be problematic. But some, some path forward where the fall opportunity isn't disrupted because of our lack of access to the Aleutian Islands at this moment. Okay, thank you, Ms. Cavanaugh. We have another question.

Mr. See. Thanks, Ms. Cavanaugh, for your testimony, and appreciate the comments on, on the concerns about the cod closures. I, I'm just curious, there's a number of sectors that are affected by early closures of cod in the Bering Sea. And, and, uh, and so my— I would imagine that there'd be a lot of interest in looking at other sectors who have impacts from those closures. And there's an Amendment 85 review coming up in, you know, not too long.

And so I'm curious whether you might see this as something that could be incorporated into a the upcoming review of the FMVSS 95 or looking at the, you know, looking at more broadly than simply the under 60 concerns that you have with your fleet?

I think that's definitely a solution. I think that within the sector there's, you know, there seems to be a desire to look at it a little bit quicker than that. I think that would be the the back, you know, the backfall or whatever you call it trigger. But I think that especially with this notice coming on October 1st, there's a lot of frustration in our fleet right now where once again, we're kind of removed from that fall opportunity, that fall federal opportunity. So, I guess that could be like the last default because it's already there.

But it doesn't seem to really address this ongoing issue, um, like we'd like to see it happen.

Thank you for your testimony, Miss Kevna.

Lauren Hines is up next, followed by Rob Worm.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the council. For the record, my name is Lauren Hines and I'm representing Oceana. Oceana asks that the council begin a process to protect Gulf of Alaska seafloor habitat and to take up Oceana's habitat protection proposal as a part of that process. Ocean conditions in the Gulf are becoming less predictable. A very strong El Niño is forecast this winter, and NOAA has documented changes in where Pacific cod, arrowtooth flounder, and several rockfish are found.

These conditions are also taking a toll on the seafloor. NOAA's 2025 ESR found Gulf sponges declining since 2019 and corals declining as well. Its authors called the decline concerning and said recent warm water events have most certainly impacted some of these sessile populations. And called the trends an indication of a decline in the habitat available to rockfishes and other species. The same report notes that these corals and sponges are vulnerable to bottom contact fishing gear, and that's why from the U.S. Arctic to Southern California, every region of the Northeast Pacific has limited where bottom trawls can go, except for this— except for one.

In 2008, this council closed untrawled Bering Sea habitat to bottom trawling, quote, as a precautionary measure because, as NIMS put it, the first pass of a non-pelagic trawl is the most likely to damage bottom habitat. So, quote, it is prudent to protect those areas that are all, all not already actively trawled. And that's exactly what we're asking for in the Gulf. Additionally, in 2005, it closed over 95% of the solutions to bottom trawling. The Pacific Council in the— in British Columbia did the same.

The Central and Western Gulf is the only remaining gap where more than 90% has no year-round protection from bottom trawling. Oceana has asked the council to take up this issue before, and we're back because the risk has grown. First, the Gulf is changing and getting harder to predict. The 2025 ESR found the Gulf unusually warm most of the year, with what it called little refuge for groundfish. This year, most of the Gulf cooled to about average, but NOAA now gives a 90% chance of a very strong El Niño this winter, possibly the strongest since 1950, expected to warm the Gulf with groundfish distribution shifts among its possible listed effects.

Second, fish are already moving. NOAA has tracked Pacific Ocean perch, northern and dusky rockfish, shifting in different directions across the Gulf. These are Alaska's 3 most commercially important rockfish, all strongly associated with coral and sponge habitat. NOAA survey data has also showed Pacific cod and arrowtooth flounder, also bottom trawl targets, moving deeper during the last major marine heat wave. Third, the fleet follows fish.

For example, when Pacific cod moved north in the Bering Sea during recent warm years, NIMS documented fishing activity shifting north with them. There, the Northern Bering Sea Research Area keeps bottom trawls out of untrawled habitat. In the Gulf, almost nothing does. So what happens to untrawled Gulf seafloor when the fish move and the fleets follow? Since 2006, observers have documented over 220,000 pounds of coral, bryozoan, and sponge bycatch in the Gulf bottom trawl— from Gulf bottom trawls.

88% Of the total observed, and that's only the hauls observers sampled. In 2025, only 15% of partial coverage Gulf trawl trips were selected for an observer. When NIMS extrapolates to unobserved trips, unobserved trips, its all-gear estimates for this kind of bycatch in the Gulf have run 10 to 20 times higher than what observers recorded in recent years, most of it from the bottom trawl fleet. And no observer can count what the gear damage is on the seafloor, but never— that it never brings on deck. The fishing effects model can't fill that gap.

It's built on where fishing has already happened, so untrawled seafloor just shows up as undisturbed. It can't tell you what happens when the fleet follows fish onto pristine ground. And under the MSA, the council must evaluate potential adverse effects of fishing on all EFH. Not just today's footprint, and act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize them where practicable. The Act also requires minimizing bycatch, and that includes corals and sponges.

Oceana's proposal is a practical way to meet those requirements. It would protect roughly 90% of the Central and Western Gulf from bottom trawling while displacing no more than an estimated 7% of recent trawl area and 4% of recent catch, and it protects 87% of known coral and 76% of known sponge observations in the proposal area. We're not asking you to adopt this today. We're asking you to start a process now so it's considered during this 2028 EFH review. NOAA scientists call the sponge decline particularly concerning, report dead sponges in multiple areas off the Gulf, and say that there is, quote, a need to better understand how deep sea sponge habitats may be changing.

But as you've noted this week, staff capacity is limited, and that's exactly why a precautionary path is needed to protect untrolled habitat now and review areas when the agency has capacity, rather than leave it nearly completely unprotected. So we ask that the council accept our proposal for consideration as the basis for a habitat action, issue a public call for habitat proposals, just as the Pacific Council did. And following this, send those proposals to your committees, advisory bodies, ask NIMPS to consult with affected tribes, and bring knowledge through the council's LKTKS protocol. Lastly, build in an adaptive review so areas in the future can be adjusted as the science, the stocks, and what we learn from this process change. Acting now before the fleet potentially moves into new ground and while our corals and sponges are already in decline, protects the most habitat while displacing the least fishing.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. See if there are any questions.

Yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you for the testimony. I wanted to see if I could summarize part of what you were saying about the limitations of the analysis that we currently do, and is it because I'm confirming this is what you're concerned with. It only looks at where fishing is actually taking place. It only looks at that past bottom trawled area as opposed to opportunity for moving into new area.

Was that— did I catch that correctly? Thank you, Ms. Kimball, through the chair. No, not exactly. The model does consider the entire domain goes out to 1,000 meters in depth, So it does include areas that potentially could be unfished, which I think quite a large amount of it is unfished. The concern with that is if we are relying on this model to tell us that there is no impact, what is the risk if those fleets say in one warming event move into an area which the, you know, NMFS has already stated that first trawl pass could have the most impact, you could see a massive change in even the output of that model based on one season of fishing that has shifted.

And I will say, we don't have access to, you know, the VMS data because it's confidential, but even when you look at AIS data from a longer time series from 2015, I think, to 2023 or 2024. When I— when we went back and overlaid in 2025 over it, you, you can see that there is quite a, quite a change from, you know, where they had been and where they are more recently. It's, it's not a massive change, but, you know, we don't, we don't know what is in those areas. And as I said, we're already kind of seeing a struggle for these invertebrates.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Rob Worm is up next, followed by Ben Lay. I think Rob is—. Yeah, Madam Chair, can you hear me?

Yes, good morning, or good afternoon, sorry. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the Council. For the record, my name is Rob Worm. I'm the I'm the President and CEO of Alaska Leader Fisheries. We own and operate 4 freezer longliners in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands.

Today I'll be really brief. On your agenda for the February 2027 meeting, you have the LL2 endorsement criteria initial review, and I'm just here to ask you to continue to make that a high priority and leave it on the agenda. And get going down that path of analysis so that ultimately our hope is that we'll have more lead level 2 observers available for our fleet and others. I just, as an example, this last year, in order to secure a lead level 2 observer in one instance, I was highly encouraged to start a contract with securing an observer because the chances that when I wanted to, needed to start fishing in 3 weeks, there wasn't going to be one available. And that's just one example.

And so the problem is real. We need availability of more lead Level 2 observers for our fleet, and I'm assuming others. And so my ask is simple, that you would keep that on the agenda and start that analysis so we can resolve this really critical problem that we're having. And that's all I have, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Are there any questions? Okay, seeing none, thanks for joining us. Thank you. Ben Lay is up next, followed by Loretta Brown. Yes, good afternoon.

Can you hear me fine? Yes, good afternoon. Good afternoon. So for the record, my name is Ben Lay, owner-operator of the Cape St. Elias out of King Cove, Alaska. I'm here today representing the Peninsula Fishermen's Coalition, which is a group of local Western Gulf 58-foot combination vessels.

Today I'd like to, uh, comment on a letter we submitted here, and it's: we are respectfully requesting that the council consider a small interim ad hoc reallocation of Pacific cod to the western Gulf of Alaska for the A season only. Specifically, we request that the Council consider reallocating 3% to the western Gulf for the winter fishery as a conservative temporary measure while the stock assessment and management framework continue to evaluate Pacific cod movement between the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Recent scientific discussions and presentation material from Pete Holsen and Steve Barbeau represent or support the conclusion that some portion of Bering Sea Pacific cod biomass is present in the Western Gulf of Alaska during the winter A-season fishery. While the exact magnitude of the movement remains under review, the available information strongly indicates that fish harvested in the Western Gulf during winter may include biomass that migrates to the Bering Sea during summer survey periods. The requested 3% allocation is intentionally conservative.

Based on the range of potential migrating biomass discussed in the recent analysis, a 3% adjustment reflects a cautious assumption of approximate 30— approximately 30% migration, even though the actual movement may be closer to 50%. This request is not intended to overreach or prejudge the outcome of the formal modeling process. Rather, it is intended to recognize on an interim basis the biological reality that at least some Bering Sea-associated Pacific cod are available and harvested in the Western Gulf Fleet, or by the Western Gulf Fleet, during the A season. From a biological and management perspective, this interim adjustment would more closely align harvest accounting with what is likely occurring on the water. If a portion of the winter Western Gulf harvest is composed of fish that would otherwise be reflected in Bering Sea biomass during summer surveys, then a small, a-season-only reallocation is a reasonable bridge while the formal assessment work proceeds.

The Council's own assessment process recognized that Pacific cod movement and distribution are important factors in setting sustainable fishing limits and evaluating stock structure. The action would also provide meaningful near-term support for local Alaska fishing communities and small vessel participants in the Western Gulf of Alaska. A 3% adjustment would be a very small change relative to the scale of the Bering Sea fishery, but would make a substantial difference to the Western Gulf fleet during the winter fishery. The benefit would be concentrated among the local vessels and communities most directly affected by constrained Western Gulf opportunity. Because the formal modeling and resulting management changes may be at least a year away, if not longer, an interim A season-only reallocation would provide a practical and precautionary way to address the issues now without committing the Council to a permanent allocation decision.

It would acknowledge the best available science, apply a conservative assumption, and help ensure the Western Gulf harvest opportunity better reflects this— the seasonal science or presence of Pacific cod in the area. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the Council I would like the Council to consider a small interim ad hoc reallocation of 3% to the Western Gulf of Alaska for the A season only. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work to support sustainable fisheries management and Alaska fishing communities.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Lay. Ms. Kimball has a question. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Lay, for your testimony. I And, and I hear you on the need and reflective of what you're seeing on the water.

I, um, because the council is legally bound not to exceed ABC, I, I don't think your request is, is consistent with the Magnuson Act. I don't think we would be able to do that. So my question is, are there other pressure points that you, that you think the council could be engaged in to move the, the either the model work or something else that would get us a little farther on this question of the permeability of the Western Gulf stock and the Bering Sea cod stock that would, that would, I guess, enlighten the situation. I, I know I'm not sure how to make progress on this, but exceeding an ABC is something we definitely can't do, so I'm looking to you for any other options. So I guess, thank you, Ms. Kimball, through the Chair.

I guess from our perspective, it's, it's It's the continuation of, of moving this process forward. The fact that there's, there's sound science that supports migrating biomass and, and a stock that's maybe a, a, a, a new stock essentially, and understanding this, you know, and continuing status quo. Um, I, I look back to, from, from our group's perspective, we look back at to '18 where we had the Gulf, the Gulf crash, and where from we went to have a pretty pretty sustained opportunity, and then, and then went from nothing. Like, we, we went down to where we had a 0% harvest. The next, the next year we had an opportunity to fish, and the fishing was just as good that next year as we'd seen, you know.

We just came through this huge crash, and they said there's no cod, and we didn't really see a dip in CPUE in our winter A season. And then that, that's what triggered then a 5-year tagging study, which then satellite tagged. All this work and effort was put in. So then they're like, yes, okay, look, you're looking at a good portion of your biomass is migrating to Bering Sea. Now that has ended, the science supports it, and here we are from, from our perspective, you know, here we are as now we're a couple years removed from that tagging study and we're kind of beating the drums like, hey, we, we, we had from a Western Gulf perspective, we had a, a processor fold and then we had these cod, these cod, uh, numbers declined to where our opportunity You know, and I'm not going to be like the, the, the complainer up here, but we, we've had like— it's been the cards of the— the stack has been dealt against us here in a bad way.

Like, we're just lack of opportunity. And here we are now in a cod, a super hot cod market, and we're looking at opportunities right around the corner. And, and our fishing, that's still really good, and our CPU is really good at that time of the year. And, and we're looking at, you know, here we go. So how do we How do we prove this science?

I guess, I guess so we testified at the SSC, and, and from my understanding, this model was kind of based on a lot of information that is continuing to roll here. So now we look at, okay, if this, this model continues to be needing to be fed by, by data and tagging information, you know, now we're 2 years removed from, from this. So how do we, how do we get to the point where something meaningful is going to happen and keep foot on the gas. So I guess, Ms. Kimball, in, in direct answer to your question is, how do we keep this process moving that we scientifically know the fish that are, are present in the Western Gulf and the spawning Western Gulf stock and are going elsewhere? The Western Gulf fishermen are not getting an opportunity to get that.

And if there's no ad hoc solution immediately while we continue to go through hardship, what do we need to do to keep the foot on the gas and make this happen as absolutely soon as possible? Because I look at it as, as a fisherman in his mid-40s and continuing to fight and advocating for our— my own well-being, but the betterment of the resource and following the science and being an ethical fisherman. But I look at the process, which I believe in, but I look at the, the time frame of this is like, how can I reasonably think that this is even going to be a thing that affects even my career? Now, I— that's not an excuse to not see this through the right way, But I will advocate—. I apologize for interrupting.

I think you very well answered the question. Really appreciate it. I'll see if there are any other questions. Okay. Thank you so much for your testimony.

So Loretta Brown is next, followed by Kylie Thompson.

Hello, can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Excellent, thank you. Chair Drumnicka and members of the council, my name is Loretta Brown and I'm testifying before you today on behalf of Salmon State. Salmon State is an Alaska-based conservation effort with staff living throughout Alaska communities.

At Salmon State, we work alongside Alaska Native organizations, commercial fishing entities, and recreational fish groups to promote policies that keep Alaska a place that wild salmon and the people who depend on them can thrive. I have two things to bring before you this afternoon, so my testimony here should be pretty brief. Um, first, you'll find attached to my testimony sign-up here a letter with 470 signatures on it requesting that the council undertake action to reduce halibut bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries. With halibut abundance at a century low, it is imperative that this council reduce the impacts of bycatch on the halibut population. Salmon State supports the proposal submitted to you here by ALFA under staff tasking to implement an abundance-based management approach to set halibut bycatch caps for the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries.

And I think if you have any particular questions regarding that proposal, I, I think I saw that Linda Benken is supposed to testify later this afternoon, so you could probably ask her those questions. And then second, you are set to deliberate and set priorities for the council and council staff today after public testimony. When setting discretionary priorities such as FMP amendments for conservation and management, Salmon State urges this council to take a hard look at the future impacts of each of those actions you will take up.

The future of our ocean ecosystem, our fisheries, and our Alaska coastal communities is in your hands. Fishing activities can have a profound impact on the marine ecosystem. Salmon State implores this council to take careful consideration of not only the status of the ecosystem and fisheries that is in a state of crisis now, but also the projected continued stress of changing ocean conditions on those resources when you consider taking up actions. You have heard from hundreds to thousands of Alaskans to undertake actions to protect important subsistence recreation, and commercial marine resources from the adverse impacts of trawl fisheries, which has the largest amount of bycatch and habitat impacts of all the fisheries this Council manages. As you contemplate which inputs to consider in prioritizing Council actions, especially in choosing among actions when there are limited staff capacity and bottlenecks, Salmon State urges you to prioritize those actions that protect and conserve marine resources under stress, rather than those that potentially increase bycatch and habitat impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I'll see if there are any questions.

Mr. Ritchie.

Thank you, Ms. Brown, for your testimony. I'm looking at your letter here, and I'm wondering if you're, in addition to looking at a lower bycatch cap. Like, we heard a request in, in the AP and saw motion to have a look at all sources of halibut mortality, and I'm wondering if, if you're supportive of looking at other sources of mortality as well as PSC. Just if you could walk me through that. Sure, I think it is important, of course, for when we're looking at a halibut population size being and abundance being at a really, an all-time low in the time that we've really looked at the population of halibut and management of that resource, I think it is important to understand what the mortality is from all sources, whether it's natural mortality or if it's from being taken, as you know, in the directed fishery, recreational subsistence fisheries.

However, I do think that the PSC cap for the Gulf of Alaska hasn't been changed. Since 2013, I want to say, and I think Linda can correct me if that's wrong later. But so in, in, in that time, we have continued to see the halibut populations decrease, and it continues to be that the Gulf of Alaska trawl fleet is the highest bycatch rate and the one that is, you know, not a directed fishery. So those fish are not going towards you know, to feed families. They're not going into the market.

They're not going to, you know, to recreational fisheries that are supporting local businesses and local communities. So I think it is imperative for the PSC cap reduction to be a top priority. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you, Ms. Brown.

I'm just Curious on some of those last statements as well. I mean, because the trawl sector is the only sector in which we do have a PSC cap, is that the impetus to have that be the focus? It's kind of the regulatory path to reduce some mortality of halibut? Because we just received information even at this meeting that the fixed-geared mortality of halibut, the discard mortality of halibut, is 4 times higher than trawl. So I'm trying to sort out, is, is trawl the focus because we already have a PSC limit that you could reduce, or are the other sectors just not as important given their— anyway, that's my question, is a little bit on Mr. Ritchie's question on where to put the focus.

Ms. Kibble, I think that's an important question. I think one of the things that really needs to be considered when we're talking about PSC and discard mortality is when, when you look at the rate tables, that's what it is, it's a rate. It's not the number of fish, and it's not the metric tons that are taken as bycatch. And if you look at the Gulf of Alaska trawl fleet, the, the trawl fleet is the one that takes the most number of fish and the most in metric tons for bycatch. And so that's why I think it should be a priority.

Thank you, Ms. Brown. I, I do think that we may have received some information counter to that. Statement this meeting and our last meeting too. So maybe we can just make sure we're talking about the same thing offline. At some point we can follow up on that.

So thank you.

Kylie Thompson is up next, followed by Hannah Heinbuch.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Madam Chair, members of the council, my name is Kylie Thompson. I live in Sandpoint, Alaska. I operate the F/V Decision. We fish pot cod or cod in the western and central Gulf of Alaska using both pot and trawl gear. We were the lead vessel used for the cod tagging project since its inception in 2021.

The cod tagging project was born out of Western Gulf fishermen's observations that the cod stock in the Western Gulf season seem to be highly migratory. After 5 years of tagging with both satellite and conventional tag tags, this theory has been proven out. How much of the stock, stock moves may be open for discussion, but the fact that these fish exist is proven. After seeing the presentation by both the Bering Sea and GOA stock assessment authors at the recent plan team meeting, I have some serious questions. Clearly a highly migratory stock that spawns primarily in the western Gulf of Alaska in the winter and migrates to the Bering Sea in the summer has been identified.

We have not been accounting for this stock based on the current Fishery Management Plan system. Western Gulf of Alaska fishermen and communities, including myself, depend on a strong A-season cod fishery. Under the current system, it is assumed that the majority of the stock would be surveyed in the Eastern Bering Sea Survey. However, a large portion of the harvest in the Western Gulf A-season is clearly on this stock. This was clearly demonstrated in the most recent Gulf stock cod collapse, when from a fisherman's perspective, cod were still abundant in the Western Gulf A season, yet summer Gulf surveys reflected the decline of Gulf-based stocks.

I would ask the council to recommend to the SSC and the plan team prior to the next meeting to create an ad hoc TAC to be moved immediately from the Bering Sea to the Western Gulf somewhere between 3 to 7% based on the author's presentations. Now that the stock has been identified, status quo is unacceptable. It seems prudent, as it has not— as it has not been protected under the current system ever. As model work continues, numbers could be moved up or down depending on the available science, but right now the best available science says we have a newly identified stock that needs to be properly accounted and protected from overfishing. This stock migrates twice yearly through areas of extremely high fishery effort in the Bering sea, and in the face of another El Niño event, which could create a situation similar to 2016 through '18, getting a handle on the situation immediately seems prudent.

I would also add several Western Gulf-based vessels were used in the tagging project over the years, and myself and other fishermen who have been trained in tagging would like to continue the tagging program on a voluntary basis with at minimum conventional tags, which could be deployed during seasons or with a permit immediately post-aseason pot and statewater fisheries to reduce recapture. I would also like to thank AFSC staff, Allusions Eastborough staff, and ADF&G staff for all the work on the project over the years. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Thompson. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for joining us.

Hannah Heimbach is up next, followed by Jim Armstrong.

Good afternoon, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council members. For the record, my name is Hannah Heimbach, testifying today on behalf of the Under 60 Cod Harvesters. Our members are pot vessels harvesting Pacific cod in the Gulf, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. At first, I want to just add our concerns to those you've heard about the early closure of the Bering Sea to directed Pacific cod fishing. We've testified on this one before.

There's There's definitely now a pattern of early closures to Bering Sea directed P Cod over the last 5 or so years when the fishery-wide TAC is achieved and forces remaining quota to be harvested in the Aleutians. As you heard earlier, this disproportionately affects catcher vessel fleets that rely on Bering Sea shoreside processing. The under-60 fleet has also always relied on BSEI sector reallocations for B season opportunity, which already creates a level of stability despite fall fishing having been, you know, a meaningful long-term part of that sector's operation. And I think when you add the increasing likelihood that another sector will trigger an early closure, it becomes very difficult for operators to access that fishing opportunity at all or to plan for it. So we definitely support a discussion paper assessing that pattern, its impacts to multiple fleets or any fleets impacted, and then a means to address it.

And I'd note that I appreciate the discussion a bit earlier around the upcoming, the in the '85 review, but I don't think that's quite the right fit. First of all, because it's quite a few years out still, and this is, I think, a more urgent issue. But then also the previous review of Pacific cod allocations acknowledged pretty clearly that the under-60 fleet did not have the fall season stability that other sectors do, despite having significant history participating at that fishery. At the time, we asked for that to be addressed, but it didn't move forward in that one. This early closure is an additional concern and seems to be more an unintended consequence of how peacock is apportioned and harvested between areas.

So, you know, it'd be relevant to note in the allocation review, but it's not necessarily an allocation issue. And so I don't think couching it under the review establishes a strong enough council intent to address it as a distinct problem on its own. So I'd really encourage a separate action for a simple discussion paper, and I don't think that needs to be a heavy lift, but could ultimately be very meaningful to multiple sectors. On a second issue, we're opposed to limiting the Council's ability to initiate new actions to once or twice a year. I don't think that will actually solve any of the staff time challenges we have now, but I, I do think it would discourage public input and timely response to that input, and perhaps, you know, more importantly, I think there's a chance that it seriously bottlenecks the requests and action efforts in a manner that may actually make action and scheduling harder, particularly in the moment during Council meetings by, you know, creating more urgency around those times for the public.

I think the Council already has the ability to shape its own schedule and priorities. It's challenging, but that ability is there. And it's already very difficult to move an action from public input to a Council motion. So I think limiting the ability to bring new issues forward could end up eroding the public process without actually meaningfully changing staff capacity issues and, and really compresses the input process in a way that might create new and unexpected challenges. And lastly, in terms of the SSC's overscheduled February agenda, I'd urge the council to prioritize Gulf Tanner crab, EFH methodology, and cook and let salmon specifications and delay the herring PSC review for both the SSC and the Council to a later date.

Salmon specs need to progress on a timeline matching the upcoming fishing season. EFH methodology is a regular part of stakeholder comment and testimony across multiple fisheries and agenda items and is pivotal to several high-priority items. And then Gulf Tanner crab protections have been an urgent focus for Gulf of Alaska communities for decades and certainly in the last couple of years. Increases to herring PSC percentages is a deeply controversial topic. It's at odds with ongoing community discussions around meaningful development of the directed herring fishery, but regardless of those other factors, it's just not appropriate to prioritize a PSC increase item ahead of the other 3 items listed for SSC review, which are directly related to conservation fundamentals and maintaining small boat opportunity.

Thanks very much. Thank you very much for your testimony. See if there are any questions. Yes, Ms. Baker, then Ms. Kimball.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Heimbach, for your testimony. And I'd like to focus on, uh, it was closer to the first part of your testimony in terms of— I think you were questioning the wisdom of perhaps reducing the number of meetings at which the council would potentially consider initiating new actions. And I, I think that's what I wanted to ask you about, is I, I thought you said that we were considering limiting the number of meetings that the public could bring new proposals, and I didn't quite interpret it that way. So maybe I could just ask you to repeat what you were cautioning us against there.

Sure, through the Chair, that's a really good question. I understand, I think the Council's intent would be to limit the number of meetings at which you would actually initiate new actions, but that doesn't explicitly prohibit the public from bringing them forward. But that said, I do think it kind of has a secondary effect of changing how the public chooses to engage with the Council. You know, certainly people will still flag those items But I think, you know, folks that are, you know, really accustomed to working within the council process will know that the action has to happen at those compressed times, right? And so I think that you'll end up getting, you know, kind of a lack of engagement in the meetings where you don't have the ability to initiate, and then probably a lot of pressured engagement during, you know, the one or two times that you are able to initiate action because people feel that urgency around having a more limited timeframe to achieve those things, which as we all know, takes a lot of effort and relationship building and communication, you know, before, during, after council meetings.

So I just think it would have a kind of a secondary impact of creating a pressurized situation for the public's ability to engage with the council on that. Thank you. And Ms. Kimball. Thank you. My question, Ms. Heimbach, thank you for your testimony was on that same point.

I'm— because I hadn't thought of it that way. I know other councils also, at least the Pacific Council, does not initiate new tasking at every meeting, or maybe they do it once a year. But, but I thought it was going to be helpful to the public because it's, it's less disingenuous to take all of this testimony and know that we have the, the most serious capacity problems we've already had, we've ever had, um, at both the NIMS and the council staff level. So do you— I mean, what's the alternative, I guess, to continue to have people engage but not pretend that we can take everybody's proposal and push it through the process? It's— we're clearly at a point at which we cannot do that anymore.

Through the Chair, Ms. Kimball, thanks for that question. I mean, I realize the Council's in a really challenging position as far as capacity. I just think this additional step doesn't actually address capacity, and I think the public is already very aware of how long council process takes, you know, in general, let alone when there's these capacity compression challenges. And right now, it's— you already have all of the tools to set priorities and schedule things and, you know, delay them, as much as we don't like to do that. Inevitably that happens when there's these capacity challenges.

And so I don't think that this adds to meaningful tools, and while it might, you know, manage expectations to a certain extent, I'm not sure that's worth the trade-off of kind of the additional perception that we have even more limited time to potentially move things forward. I guess I'm thinking of a cost-benefit thing. I think there's some relationship costs there that might create urgency that's unnecessary in the public as far as like kind of trying to bombard the council with requests at these really focused times without really changing much on the other end of it. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. And Ms. Heimbach, I have a question about the earlier part of your testimony. You said you represented fleet that had historical participation both in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. And we heard from an earlier testifier, you know, some of the, you know, the challenges, logistical challenges with proximity to market of the small vessels fishing in the Aleutian Islands. And I was just wondering if that held pretty true for your membership as well, or if there are any vessels under 60 that are able to harvest in the Aleutian Islands, considering the distance to the market, or what that looks like after the Bering Sea closes?

Thanks. Through the chair, thanks for the question. I mean, historically, we've definitely had members that harvest in the Aleutian Islands, but that's been very tied to the, you know, the market access to when there was either an active processor, an ADAC, or tendering capacity, which is, which is also fairly tenuous. I, I don't know offhand if there is anyone that has found the ability to go harvest in the Aleutians, you know, this season. It's definitely been possible in the past and not possible in the past.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you for joining us. Thank you.

So Jim Armstrong is up next, followed by Nels Evans.

Okay. So, Jim is passing and we'll go to Nels Evans followed by Sarah Webster.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Yeah, good afternoon, Chair, members of the Council. My name is Nels Evans. I'm Executive Director of Petersburg Vessel Owners Association.

I will try and keep this brief. Petersburg Vessel Owners Association is a commercial fishing trade association based out of Petersburg, Alaska. PVOA fishermen participate in state and federal fisheries with almost every gear group from Dixon Entrance to the Bering Sea. The largest contingent of federal fisheries participation of PVOA membership is in the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries. I'm going to be speaking on halibut and conservation concerns to that stock.

I've spoken about that plenty at this meeting, so I won't go as in-depth as I have in past testimony. PVOA membership is acutely aware of the current biomass regime that the Pacific halibut stock is currently facing. We have testified to this earlier this meeting. Pacific halibut spawning stock biomass is currently just above the 50-year low, and we are seeing fewer recruitment classes that are above the long-term average. The larger recruitment classes that we did see in the 1990s have largely phased out of the population.

Leaving more and more— leaving us more and more reliant on a few slightly above average year classes. All this points us to being in a lower productivity regime for the foreseeable future. Due to the current and projected future of the Pacific halibut population as a whole, PVOA supports a data request by the Council to the IPHC on halibut PSC use and biomass shifts since 2014. We selected 2014 as that is the year that the last PSC action was established, The halibut spawning stock biomass has seen a roughly 25% reduction since then. We believe that this could help inform whether future action on PSE limits is warranted and believe that this will be, this will be of low burden and lift to the Council since it is just a request of IPHC data.

On a different but still halibut-related topic, it was encouraging to hear the Council deliberation on D1 yesterday and the conversations that surrounded Council members' concerns with the Unguided sector, particularly in 2C. Halibut is a 100% utilized resource and almost all user groups have to operate under strict management measures, but the assisted unguided user group is able to grow as a commercial and harvesting sector with minimal guardrails and catch accounting in place. PVOA is very aware of the complications surrounding management and accountability within this sector and are supportive of any efforts that the council is able to take to address this issue. We believe that while there is no mechanism for parsing out assisted unguided sport from general sport harvest, data on sport harvest trends in relation to biomass shifts and impacts on fishery limits could also be drawn out from a data request from the council to the IPHC. PVOA understands that these two asks affect different user or halibut user groups in the Gulf differently.

While PSC takes more of a direct impact on 3A and 3B harvesters through direct reductions in region-specific catch limits, the 2C impacts from PSC are seen more through the Coastwide U26 mortality. On the other hand, the assisted unguided sport harvest has had a larger impact on 2C catch limits due to the continued growth of the sector in the region year over year. And take from the combined sport sector comes off the top of 2C harvest limits. In closing, PVOA is supportive of actions that will help to strengthen the directed users of the Pacific halibut and provide proper management and guidelines on all halibut take. Thank you for your time and consideration at this meeting, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Evans. Any questions?

Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. So Sarah Webster is up next, followed by Kim Landine.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the council. For the record, my name is Sarah Webster. I am the science advisor for the Alaska Gulf of Alaska Seafood Cooperative. We represent the Amendment 80 sector. I want to speak briefly to some of the comments that we've heard throughout the course of the council and the AP meetings, as well as comments that have been submitted under staff tasking that address changes to halibut limits, halibut PSC limits in the Gulf of Alaska.

I think it's important to provide a bit of context regarding our halibut limits and how they fit into the context of halibut mortality in the Gulf, especially as we think about prioritization moving forward. We are subject to strict halibut limits that have the potential to shut down our fisheries, and as a result, we work really hard to avoid halibut and to minimize mortality in order to ensure that we can continue fishing. For those that are not as familiar with the trawl halibut limits, the Amendment 80 sector is allowed take a portion of the total trawl halibut limit, and that is further apportioned between shallow and deepwater targets, and then it's apportioned among 5 different seasons. Any halibut bycatch is accounted for in season, and if we hit any of our target season limit combinations, it shuts our fishery down. This is not a limit that we're trying to attain, it is one that we are, are actively trying to avoid at all times.

I also want to draw your attention to the pie chart that I attached to this testimony just to provide some additional context. This chart is of halibut mortality by user group, and in 2025, you can see that little piece that's cut out of there. The trawl halibut PSC was about 2.5% of total mortality, and the Ketcher processors that I represent were about half of that mortality source. At the same time, the recreational sector, including both the charter and unguided components of that sector, represent about 27% of mortality. That's the blue on that chart.

And I would also note, with respect to the unguided sector in particular, that accounted for about 13% of Gulf mortality in 2025, that there is no sector limit that constrains the catch or the in-season track, and there is no in-season tracking of data either. There is also not in-season tracking of the charter halibut sector. The commercial fishery mortality represented about 66% of halibut mortality in 2025, which includes a substantial amount of halibut discards. I also want to note that the commercial discards that I included in this chart here are the data that were reported by NMFS in-season management. The IPHC uses a really different estimation method for their commercial discard accounting process, and my understanding is that the reason for that inconsistency is due to the lack of observer data for a substantial portion of that fleet.

And then subsistence fisheries, research, and fixed gear PSU are also minor, minor sources of mortality, and they are included there as well.

There was a testifier yesterday that provided some information looking at longer longer-term trends of the spawning stock biomass, I just want to remind the Council that while we are at a considerably low level right now relative to the 1990s when IFQ was implemented, this is not an unprecedented low relative to the longer-term estimates that are included in the stock assessment.

So just in closing, the, the Charter Halibut Committee and other commenters suggested taking a more comprehensive and sector-neutral look at halibut mortality in the Gulf. There have been some other organizations that have suggested an abundance-based management system, and I just think that considering the current constraints in both staffing and resources that we're facing in this region, I think it's important to understand the scope and scale of halibut removals and whether really this fits into the prioritization process, considering the, the the actual current PSC use. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We'll see if there are any questions.

Yes, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for your testimony, Ms. Webster. You spoke early in your testimony about the PSC limits that you operate under for halibut. Could you— but I didn't— I might have missed it, but I didn't hear you talk about the monitoring that your vessels have on board to enforce those PSC limits.

Could you just speak briefly on that, please? Thank you. Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Bowers. All of the catcher processors that are operating in the Gulf of Alaska carry two federal observers on board, so every single haul is monitored.

We also have cameras throughout the deck and throughout the factory, and use flow scales in our factory. With regards to halibut mortality as well, the vessels that are participating in the Gulf deck sort when they are able to, and that really is able to help reduce our overall mortality. If we're deck sorting, everything has to stop in the factory. The observer comes up onto the deck and they watch everything and count every single halibut that goes overboard and then and take, um, take a sample, a very robust sample of, um, length measurements to, to estimate the total biomass of those removals. And again, that's done with cameras watching us the entire time, and those cameras are audited pretty regularly by enforcement.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Okay, thank you, Ms. Webster. Thank you. Kim Landine is up next, followed by Rebecca Skinner, Patty O'Donnell, Andrea Kajkala, and others.

Is this broken? It appears that you just broke it.

Glad to oblige.

Just getting situated. Forrest Braden, Kim Landy, and co-executive directors of Southeast Alaska Guide Organization, testifying for SEGO today. I sure appreciate this time. I want to be brief. We appreciate the council picking up the initial review and passing that.

Looking at modifications to the recreational quota entity. That's extremely important for our sector right now. We're facing circumstances— this is a new program, and actually all eyes, you may not know this, but all eyes in the nation in sport fishing are looking at compensated transfer ways to solve their allocative problems. So what you do is being scrutinized by others across the country, so we appreciate your work. Again, it is a new program, we're learning as we go, we're reacting to very acute circumstances, especially in Regulatory Area 2C with the current regulations there.

There's a destabilization, I would characterize it as, in the fishery because of the halibut regulations for guided recreational anglers, so it feels It's awkward to come up here and we hear a lot about a lot of issues that people have and they're all urgent, but we do want this council to recognize that in a recreational fishery, it's about a 70% return customer rate. And we're worried about successive years of poor regulation in Area 2C and how that will affect the momentum and the client base that people have worked years and years and decades even to build up. So, uh, inasmuch as the council has and staff has capacity for this, we do ask that it be prioritized in your scheduling, both the analysis and in the meetings. And just speak just briefly to the idea that we have a broader, um, we have a broader idea of, uh, as we've expressed about what we're looking for in terms of a minimum recreational limit. And you heard it in testimony, we'd love to see that in times of low abundance for a recreational angler, that there's a fish, uh, halibut available for, for a recreational angler without a size limit on it in low abundance.

And we know that we can't solve that with our QENC, and it's a bigger problem. And, um, so we'll be coming to you in successive, uh, years with some ideas about maybe how to work through that. Thank you, Forrest, and Madam Chair, members of the council. Um, I'm going to tackle the elephant in the room, the self-guide fleet, and just put on record here that that is something that we are actively working towards, both here in this body. We choose to—.

We are hoping to make some progress, as well as with the state. We're kind of getting some signals that we may be able to make progress in there, and we recognize that that is a big, big component of this fishery down in Southeast. We believe that there are two things that will help us kind of grasp how to manage this fishery. The first one that we want to talk about out here is one that hasn't been brought up, but it was an executive order called Restoring American Saltwater Angling and Recreational Opportunity. Just recently, we hope and look forward to the council kind of taking that up and how they're going to respond to that.

But that points specifically, NPS, to an 180-day time frame on how sport fishing is going to be— how sport fishing economics and and monitoring and data collection are going to be more heavily involved and utilized in federal management. And we look forward to seeing how that's gonna be done, and we offer our assistance in helping that process. The second thing that we believe that can help make some headway in this region, or in this area, outside of state management and definition and registration and all those things, Um, is we believe that in Motion 1 at the AP that was attempting to kind of capture some of these, some of these things that we struggle with. As we know that the council has chosen back at the beginning of this catch sharing plan to differentiate between guided and unguided anglers. It is our belief and others that we have heard here this week that sport fishing is sport fishing, but sport fishing needs to be managed.

Sport fishing needs to have definitions. Sport Sport fishing needs to have data collection. We need to know what's happening so that we can come into the robust conversation with our commercial neighbors, with our processors, with all these other people, and be good actors in these fisheries. So we look forward to working both here as an industry and trying to bring something forward that can be prioritized, that looks at the different triggers, looks at how we utilize the fish, the economic value, the stability ability that they can bring into our communities, both in a— with this commercial fishery, and then just how we potentially can be different. But we also really look forward to getting some definitions on the state books that we can start working with.

And with that, I'll end, Madam Chair. Thank you both for your testimony. Any questions? Okay, thank you.

So Rebecca Skinner, Patty O'Donnell, Andrea Kajkala, Susie Zagorski, and Ruth Christianson.

I did notice you're all signed up separately and combined, so appreciate that.

Yep. Quite the production this afternoon.

All right, well, I will kick us off here. For the record, my name is Ruth Christianson with Groundfish Forum. With me, I have Andrea Kykela and Susie Zagorski from United Catcher Boats, and Rebecca Skinner and Patty O'Donnell with Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association. So, you know, we all testified during B reports. Each of our groups responded to the administration, the administration's letter, by bringing to the council a set of focused Steller sea lion closure area modification proposals.

Throughout this week, I mean, even before this week, before this meeting and throughout this week. We, we have heard repeated concerns about staffing and capacity at the council and agency level, and we take those concerns very, very seriously. And as such, we put our heads together after B report during this week, and we each narrowed our individual asks down even further. We've included these attached graphics, you know, showing the very limited scale of our narrowed asks. You know, this is a— we're going to keep this pretty brief.

This is an extremely important issue to each of our 3 organizations. So with our combined effort, we are really here as staff tasking to ask the Council, to ask that the Council prioritize this issue and to initiate a single analysis on our combined narrow Steller Sea Lion closure area asks. I'll turn it over to, um, my cohorts for any of their comments. Thanks, uh, Susie Zagorski, for the record. So the visuals attached to our testimony as seen here on this screen are to really show just how narrow our combined ask is compared to of total Steller's sea lion protection areas.

The Steller's sea lion areas in the Bering Sea, the Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska make up a total of approx— of 82,661 square nautical miles. That's approximately the size of the state of South Carolina. Our combined narrow ask for Steller's sea lion review is less than 10% of that total area, just 74— 7,400 square nautical miles. Square nautical miles combined, not each. So you can see each of our individual asks here as well in the visuals, and I'll pass it on to Rebecca if they have anything to add.

Thanks. Rebecca Skinner with Alaska Whitefish Trawlers. I don't have anything to add to the Stellar Sea Lion comments except to say that we, um, really are trying to work collaboratively to make this to break this down into something bite-sized that the council could feel comfortable moving forward. This would make a tremendous difference to harvesters in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. I also wanted to say I did not attach— reattach the Changing Gears, the halibut slides that I submitted yesterday under D1, but I did want to reference reference that for the record because the Gulf halibut issue has come up.

If anybody has questions on that, I'm happy to, to revisit that topic or stick to Stellar Sea Lions. Thanks.

Okay, thank you all for your testimony. Uh, Ms. Vanderhoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm, I'm looking at the, um, images for the individual areas that you're proposing to open, and in particular the Seagwam Pass and Adax Strait. And if I understand those correctly, the orangish tones are the areas that you'd be looking to open, and on its surface at least, it looks like kind of an enforcement nightmare to try to draft what that might look like and analyze.

Can you just walk me through your thought process a little bit on why you chose or how you chose those orange areas that you'd be looking at opening, or if I'm misunderstanding the labeling on those images.

Thank you, Ms. Vanderhoeven. The images, let's see, so currently what the image is trying to show in each of these areas is there's currently 20 nautical miles that we cannot directed fish for atcamackerel in. The proposal is to take that down to 10 nautical miles. And even with that reduction, that's not going to open up the entire area within that 10 nautical mile boundary. There are still portions that will be closed because there— it's prohibited from bottom using non-pelagic gear in those areas.

So it's really to show just how limited the spaces that will need to be analyzed. And for Si'igwam in particular, that's a very important area in 541 to our fleet. So that, at least from a Groundfish Forum perspective, that area is a priority for us. So hopefully that helped provide some clarification for you.

Thank you. And Ms. Kimball, thank you. I think I'm just catching up on how to read The— so the, the blue area is, say, in your first figure, is what would remain closed. Everything else would be open, with the exception of the seagull foraging area. Is that how I— I just want to make sure I'm reading it right.

I believe that is accurate, but hold on a sec. Thank you.

Now I got it. Yeah, the blue area would remain closed, even the orange area, at least for the light orange area for directed atka fishing. It's really those darker orange areas that would, under our proposal, that would be analyzed to be opened for directed atka fishing. Thank you. And follow-up, Madam Chair, for me.

I, I appreciate putting this into one request. It's much easier to understand. I'm, I'm really wondering if you've— since we all just received this letter from, uh, the assistant administrator last month, I mean, have you had an opportunity to talk to NOAA about this kind of a proposal? Like, what is the likelihood that this would be acceptable or come to some different conclusion in the buy-up? It, it's almost like, could we have as many conversations to front load before you task staff to move forward with something, is, is what I'm getting at.

Only because I can easily see how some of this would be helpful, but I'm not sure we'd come to some, any different outcome as the result of a buy-up. So my question is, if you've had any of those discussions, or are you like the council, just really trying to absorb the letter and figure out what to do next?

I'll let others weigh in too, but I, from my perspective, we received the letter and we had some— speaking for Groundfish Forum on this— we had some discussions with administrative, administration staff, you know, and they were the ones that encouraged and made provide the clarity to bring proposals forward to the council for consideration in response to their letter. So that is, that is the direction we got, and that is how we, how we have proceeded. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Pamplin. Thanks, Madam Chair.

I just really appreciate the work that you all have done to consolidate and, and try to narrow the proposal to areas that, that you all think would be the most beneficial. Um, just the guidance that was in the letter, it's kind of wide open, and, and so, so having something here to kind of react to and discuss further with the agency is incredibly helpful. I appreciate your time pulling this together. Thank you. Um, Ms. Skinner, because you mentioned your earlier testimony, um, Since we received that testimony, I have been talking to some folks trying to better understand some of the concerns and pulling some of the information related to halibut mortality and totality that PSE compared to regulatory discards in the commercial fleet and seeing that, you know, there's a pretty significant amount more in recent years and in some recent years.

Of commercial discards and trying to really understand the, you know, how to approach this in that larger context. And I'm hearing from people that there's a concern that because PSE utilization is so much below the cap that there's a risk, a perceived risk from particularly those from the commercial sector, that if PSE did actually reach those cap limits, that it could really cut into both commercial and charter allocations pretty significantly. And I was just wondering if you had thought about that or had similar conversations, and whether or not you just had a response, because I mean, I just see that utilization just so far in recent years, the last 5, 6 next year so far below that cap. I'm wondering how much of a risk that really is in your pers— from your perspective.

Yeah, so I'm, I'm also going to invite Patty to, to comment on this as well.

So I've, in conversations I've had, I've been fairly, I've tried to be honest and straightforward that for the CV fleet, we did lose our flatfish markets a few years ago, and we do want those markets back. If we target more flatfish, there will be more halibut PSE used. I, there's not really a way I could try to lie about that, but I'm not going to because that's just not how this, this fishery works. So if we catch more, more flatfish, yes, there's a risk that or a probability that we're going to catch more halibut. But that's why I provided the charts that I spoke to yesterday, because when you look at the halibut usage in the Gulf, even if the trawl PSC increased, you still have significant sources of mortality, one of which the unguided has no bounds on it whatsoever.

So I do think that there are opportunities to better manage and better get our hands around the halibut resource. I don't think that trawl PSC— if, if you're having to prioritize and pick the path that's going to get you the biggest bang for your buck, I don't see that trawl PSC is the, is the way to do that because First of all, you're talking about a hypothetical. Could this use increase enough to, um, to, to limit commercial and recreational access? And there are limits. There is a regulatory structure around it, and that same regulatory structure doesn't even exist for other sectors.

So I think that does need to be addressed.

And I, you know, my preference is to address the problem when, when the, when it is clear what the problem is. My concern right now is the problem is a fear, and it's a, it's a fear of something that might or might not happen. We don't know what the likelihood is, and if you fix that problem, it's going to preclude fishing opportunity for the, the vessels that I work with. And I really would like to— for Patty to weigh in, because when he first started fishing around Kodiak, the majority of fish that they caught was flatfish. And then over time, the pollock tack went up, and now most of the boats are reliant on pollock.

But I don't think we can assume that that's always going to be the case. So to reduce caps to the point where there's no flatfish fishing, you could be cutting the trawl boats off at the knees because ocean conditions just change.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Council. So back, I've been fishing a long time around Kodiak since 1990, and back in the '90s up to about 2010, 80% of my production was in flatfish. Back in the '90s and 2000s, we had a series of years with low pollock biomass where in Area 630, 6-hour and 12-hour openers— that's a predetermined closure, open at noon, close at 6 PM, or open at noon, close at midnight. That was common practice back then. Area 620, 24, 48, 72 '72, depending on the available tag in them.

We had many, many years like that. So the importance of flatfish is, is of great importance to us. Things have changed in the ocean, will continue to change in the ocean, and, and we could potentially be back there again. On, on, on, on the case of halibut mortality, I think, you know, we have The majority of the fleet under 40 feet is not monitored, and, and it hasn't been looked at. We don't know.

We can, we, we can make assumptions about what the mortality is, but if you remember back to 2013, the restructuring of the observer program where the hook and line fleet had very, very little observer coverage, it was discovered that the take of skates was far, far greater than was ever anticipated. And the MRA went from 15% down to 5% as a result of the information gathered through the restructured observer program. And that's why I'm mentioning the under 40. There's a lot of sources of mortality that has to be looked at and get to the bottom of this before, you know, you go and take it away from us. We're in a use-it-or-lose-it situation, and as Rebecca spoke about, spoke to, markets have been constrained over the years, tariffs, COVID, etc.

And so to cut us off again at the knees after our, you know, we already got reduced in 2012 council election, I think it's not fair to the trawl fleet at this point, to be quite honest. We are not the issue and the cause of the low stocks Holloway. Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Appreciate your testimony.

So we'll go to Carlin Hoblet, and then I'm going to circle back to Penelope House and Steve Miner, and then we'll take a short break and resume public testimony after that.

Madam Chair, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity. For the record, my name is Carlin Hoblett, lifelong commercial fisherman and resident of False Pass. I operate my family's combination vessel throughout the year and first participated in fixed gear peacock fisheries 20 years ago. It's becoming increasingly apparent that current regulatory boundaries may allow for the misidentification intensification, unaccounted harvest, and potential overharvest of Pacific cod stocks, particularly in the western GOA. The intermingling of BSAI and GOA peak cod needs to be addressed promptly, especially given the immense difference in tax across such a relatively small geographic area.

The tagging and genetic studies that support this notion have been ongoing for years, thanks in part to my father, who is also a lifelong False Pass fisherman. He advocated and worked closely with the Aleutian Geese Bureau to launch for more such studies after initially recognizing what he thought to be an issue with the management between Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.

I've learned from him to carry these responsibilities. Now I'm amenable to such duties because our communities and local economy rely heavily on these harvest opportunities and these fish stock are deeply intertwined with our regional history. While the current market trend will naturally amplify the tensions over this subject, protecting the long-term sustainability of this resource must remain paramount.

I understand there would be substantial complexities involved in the development of a new spatial model, which may take years. These fish nor the fishermen have years to spare. After the most recent Goa cod crash, and with more detrimental environmental conditions looming.

I know it's a tall order, especially since we are dealing with 2 separate FMPs, and I appreciate all that Mr. Barbeau and Mr. Halston have already put forth, as well as the rest of council staff. But I'm respectfully asking that the council urge the SSC plan team and stock assessment team to put forth any possible interim solutions.

Or even invoke an emergency rule until these harvests can be correctly accounted for. It is critical that catch data accurately reflects actual harvest to protect these vulnerable peacock populations and preserve the marine ecosystems for the future.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Hoblet. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you.

So is Penelope online? Okay, we'll go to Steve Minor, and then we'll take our mid-afternoon break.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Council. Nice to see you again. For the record, Steve Minor, Vice President of ADAC Community Development Corporation, speaking in support of including a focus review of stellar sea lion measures under Executive Order 14276. Because of the sensitivity of this issue, I'm simply going to read from ACDC's prepared remarks, if my computer stays awake. A CDC recognizes the staff and resource limitations of the council and the agency, and we support a limited focus review of SSL mitigation measures as they relate to the Western Aleutian Islands, and we ask that you include significant industry and community participation.

This request is very important to ACDC. Since the closure of the plant, ACDC has taken the lead role in an effort effort to restore seafood harvesting and processing on ADAC. Fortunately, ACDC's campaign is happening at the same time that the global demand for and value of Pacific cod is growing, which has changed the economics of operating in ADAC and led to renewed interest in establishing new processing capacity. And of course, the current SSL measures have kept the Western Aleutian Islands pollock fishery originally implemented to support ADAC, unfishable for years. ACDC is a significant QSIQ holder in the Golden King crab fishery, which generates significant annual income.

AD— ACDC has used some of that income to increase our QSIQ holdings in other fisheries to support the community, but we have also set aside significant sums to support the repair and replacement of degraded infrastructure to support the community, including the services that will be needed to support a new processor. For the last 2 years, ACDC has supported the efforts of more than one potential operator. ACDC has also applied for tidelands permits to develop new waterfront infrastructure to support the Western Aleutian Islands fleet. If a new, um, Stellar Sea Lion review results in improved access to Western Aleutian Islands resources, then that improves the long-term viability of seafood production. If, on the other hand, it is determined that current mitigation measures are effective and appropriate, the result will not diminish our efforts, and it will give the potential operator more certainty regarding their operating models and their economic and biomass assumptions.

Either way, it is a project of great value to ADEC. Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Minor. Yes, Mr. Muller.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minor, for your testimony here. You reference a focused review. Did you get a chance to take a look at the maps that previous testifiers presented in terms of, you know, the orange and what would you consider? And if you have, would you consider that a focused review? Mr. Muller, through the chair, I guess this is my opportunity opportunity to apologize for being late back here.

And no, I have not reviewed those maps.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. So let's take, uh, about a 12-minute break, come back at 3:10, and we will resume public testimony with Mick Jacek.

Yeah, no, I always speak this. So like Council members, please come back to order.

So we're continuing our public testimony on staff tasking. Nick Jacek is up next, followed by Shannon Carroll.

Good afternoon, members of the Council. For the record, my name is Nick Jacek, and I am testifying today on behalf of Ocean Conservancy. I just want to say thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify, and I would like to speak to a series of topics for this testimony. First, regarding the expectations as we approach the Joint Protocol Committee meeting this coming Friday. Second, the priorities and next steps for the Ecosystem Committee.

And lastly, a series of council prioritization. Regarding the Joint Protocol Committee, I would like to refer you to the comment letter submitted under E3 staff tasking by Ocean Conservancy, as well as 8 other organizations representing harvester conservation Tribal and community interests. This letter discusses relevant resources and information we request the council include in its presentations to the Board of Fish to holistically inform the JPC for its discussion. It is our hope that the JPC meeting will serve as a meaningful opportunity for the council and Board of Fish to collaborate based on a shared understanding. As you are aware, pelagic trawl gear is consistently in contact with the seafloor, even in areas closed to bottom trawling, and there is no enforced performance standard managing its seafloor contact in these already identified sensitive areas.

While the technology of verifying seafloor contact exists, neither state nor federal regulation requires it. The council acknowledged this at the June 2026 meeting, and we expect the JPC materials to clearly reflect and examine this regulatory gap and loophole. Additionally, JPC presentations must acknowledge the hundreds of studies from around the world that confirm that trawling does in fact have impacts on benthic habitat and productivity, as well as the significant habitat data limitations associated with Fishing Effects Model in Alaska. Neither Alaska's fish or its vital habitats respect the 3-mile distinction between state and federal waters, and both jurisdictions hold a heavy responsibility of stewardship. We look forward to participating in that work.

In relation to the work of the Ecosystem Committee. The Super El Niño event predicted for this winter is a stark reminder of the importance of ecosystem-based fisheries management and long-term sustainability in all Council processes. As such, please see the letter submitted to the Ecosystem Committee regarding proposed next steps and priorities for the Ecosystem Committee. As the committee continues to identify new climate-resilient on-ramps, we ask the Council to direct asks the committee to develop an ecosystem framework that meaningfully considers ecosystem, subsistence, community, and bycatch information to tax setting. An ecosystem framework for tax setting provides a unique opportunity for the council and the Ecosystem Committee to build upon the LKTKS protocol.

The committee should engage with tribal governments and Indigenous knowledge holders in determining how Indigenous knowledge and subsistence information can be fairly and responsibly incorporated into this framework around tax tax setting. Better inclusion of ecosystem information and Indigenous knowledge in tax setting will fundamentally strengthen EBFM in the Alaska region. And regarding the council's prioritization efforts, I would like to reference you to our B report letter and also our B report testimony and briefly say that we urge the council to take no action to reevaluate Steller's sea lion protected areas and to instead prioritize management actions that promote long-term fishery sustainability through reductions in bycatch and habitat impacts. At a time of constrained agency capacity, initiating a resource-intensive review of long-standing protections would further strain limited staff and funding, displace other Council priorities, and delay actions already awaiting consideration. We also ask that the Council preserve the intended purpose of the exempted fishing permits EFPs are designed to support limited time-bound research, gear innovation, and experimental fishing that informs fishery management, not circumvent existing conservation measures or weaken established habitat and bycatch protections.

We ask the council to ensure possible science-based applications of EFPs in Alaska. Amidst growing national pressure to expand EFP use, Alaska fishery managers should require clear experimental objectives, scientific defensible study designs, transparent public review, robust monitoring, and enforceable limits on the ecosystem. And lastly, I would like to say, quickly say, specific to Cook Inlet, that I would like to extend some quit points. First of all is that as we go into the take-up harvest specifications in the upcoming meetings for Cook Inlet, that there is a consistent and collaborative effort among state, tribal, and federal agencies involved in that, and that future stock assessments include robust genetic sampling of all salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet and pathways for effective in-season management to avoid TAC overages like we saw with the 200% TAC overage with Coho this year. And thank you, and I would take any questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Jacek. Uh, Mr. Pamplin. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Uh, thanks, Mr. Jacek, for your testimony this afternoon. Um, in regards to your comment about, uh, EFPs, uh, were the principles that you were sharing— was that in relation to an EFP or EFPs that are in the pipeline, or is that just broad principles to apply for future review of EFPs? Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Pamplin, I think that's a really good question of clarification. This is not directed towards any EFPs that are currently going through the pipeline, but instead this is regarding the national priority of increasing EFPs as forms of agile management tools.

And as that progresses and NIMPS is aimed at, you know, addressing some of the Alaska-based regional regional regulations around EFPs and shifting towards the national regulations. We just ask that that is held with consideration and that, you know, this— that there is a high standard that is not reduced any further.

Yes, Ms. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Jacek, for your testimony. I'm going to ask you about your Joint Protocol Committee recommendations. Thank you for referencing me back to your letter.

It's been a little bit since I read it. So I guess I just wanted to ask, is it your— the additional information that is asked for in your letter, or the information to be presented to the Joint Protocol Committee, is it your impression that your requests are are things, are data or analyses that have already been presented to the council and you're just asking them to also be presented at the Joint Protocol Committee meeting? Or I'm reading it as there's some additional analysis and some additional data gathering that this council hasn't received. And so can you give me your characterization on sort of which one of those things your requests fall into? I'm just, I'm I'd like to get your input on that.

Yes, uh, thank you, uh, through the chair, Ms. Baker. Um, so, you know, more so within the testimony that I provided, and I, I would really like, you know, refer you to additional topics that I'm referring to within our comment letter. I, I can't name them off all the top of my head right now, but, um, you know, regarding your question of previously presented materials, that yes, that is considered, but going forward to that, you know, what decisions have been made and discussion that was also made, you know, during such as like the June 2026 meeting and what initiatives are going forward, just understanding that as much information is provided in order to inform the Board of Fish on, you know, going forward with making a responsible decision.

Thank you. And Miss, uh, or Mr. Jacek, just to follow up on Ms. Baker's, um, question, I just have a, just a brief response, um, in going to Mrs. Evans' report during B report. We do the joint protocol meeting, doesn't— or committee doesn't meet very often, um, and we always, uh, you know, need to kind of get organized, figure out what we're going to do. We've been working with the Board of Fish leadership and trying to be responsive to information requests. So don't anticipate being able to present any new information that hasn't already gone through our process.

So it's just existing information. I see, and I read through your letter and had the opportunity to talk to Ms. O'Connor as well. There are a couple items I think that we'll be able to incorporate into presentations that were planned, others that are probably more suited for, you know, future work at the Council and analyses. So we can, we can follow up on those items, but it's not a decision-making body. So we're just there to share information with one another.

So I appreciate your feedback on that. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I am very well aware of, you know, how the process is with the Joint Protocol Committee, and the very rare occasions that that they are able to meet. Um, I just want to say that I appreciate your response and that, um, yeah, if there are any questions extending to anybody on the council, um, that I would be happy to talk in a follow-up.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. So Shannon Carroll is up next, followed by Glenn Merrill.

Good afternoon, Shannon Carroll speaking on behalf of Trident Seafoods. My ask today is for herring PSE triggers to remain a priority for the Council. I'll caveat my testimony by noting that while we are a stakeholder in the pollock fishery, we also process fish from the Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery and have been a historic participant in the Togiak Sacro fishery for quite some time, and we continue to analyze opportunities to make— to, um, in, in Togiak, and are hopeful that we can get that fishery going again at some point. I also recognize the broad value of herring in the Bering Sea, and we support management measures that prioritize stock health and appreciate all that the department has done towards that end. But we're asking the council to advertise the analysis on the herring PSE triggers because it's really important to the shoreside sector and the Aleutians.

And I, you know, certainly listening here today, I understand how many requests you're receiving both today and in past meetings. So I just want to speak both to the importance of this issue to the sector and elaborate a little bit more on what we're doing to avoid herring while still seeing these pretty high rates. So for the last several seasons, our captains in our co-op have never seen so many herring on the grounds. We've gone to really great lengths to avoid those herring, and the impacts of this avoidance is really significant on our pollock and non-pollock operations. The first slide that I have, you can look at, just shows what percentage of time we're fishing what we call out front, in front of Accutan, which is obviously the preferred location and then how much we've been moving out to some of these other areas this season in the bee season.

And the comparison is to years where herring wasn't really the driving factor in fish location, fishing location. So you can see quite a bit of time spent both kind of medium distance, but also 300+ 400+ miles away from the plant. The second slide just further highlights how much transit time that's costing both the fleet and our plant, and that has really significant impacts, obviously, on directly on fuel costs, but also on down days at the plant. We've had over 15 days with zero fish at the plant in Acutan this year. That really impacts our ability to, you know, cover throughput and impacts not only our costs on pollock, but also other species and fisheries like cod and crab.

And then lastly, on the, the third slide there, just wanted to point out that the overall the pollock fisheries bycatch has been very low and steady relative to the togiaq biomass. And so you do see an increase in the past years, and we think that's just reflective of the, the high amount of herring on the grounds. Certainly given how much we've put into avoiding herring, it's It really just seems like it's very challenging to avoid. So I'll just close by noting that this has a really significant cost on the shoreside sector that goes well beyond just public operations. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I'll see if there are any questions.

Yes, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for your testimony, Mr. Carroll. So, I think You're aware that the current biomass provided by ADF&G is informed by essentially no new data right now, and so it's become a fixed biomass estimate for Eastern Bering Sea herring stocks. And we heard in B reports that National Marine Fisheries Service is considering alternative herring biomass estimates.

That would potentially provide an annual biomass estimate. Do you support methods that would provide an annual biomass estimate that would inform the PSC, or are you fine with the fixed number like we're using now? Thanks. Thanks. Through the chair, thank you for the question, Mr. Bowers.

I certainly do think the root of this issue is the understandable change in methodology. Certainly support why the department made that shift and can, and with the lack of fishery and the lack of catch-at-age samples. So was very, I am optimistic that if the agency can, can find some way to use bottom trawl data to get some sort of reliable estimate, that that may help significantly with this issue. I'm not sure, you know, what process that would go through and what the— whether or not that the information from the bottom trawl survey actually really does correlate well. And, you know, also certainly hopeful that the department will be able to fly again and conduct at least aerial surveys.

Had some pretty bad luck this year, I think, with the really cold spring and bad weather. But yeah, I think I think certainly increasing the data collection is, is probably the bigger priority, but in the absence of that, that we are just seeing so many herring on the grounds and this, this trigger is having a large impact on us. Thank you.

Mr. Carroll, you were going through your testimony pretty quickly and I was trying to— I may have missed this and you probably described this, but A couple of your slides are referencing 2015 to '17 and then compared to 2026. What it— why did you choose those years relative to 2026 and your comparisons here? Thanks. Thanks, Madam Chair. That just in working with our skippers and trying to talk to— think about years in which the herring avoidance wasn't a driving factor in where they fished.

And so looking back, those were years of relatively average abundance. And you can see in the last slide there, years that the, you know, where we were relative to the trigger is pretty far below. So just trying to look back to something that might be meaningful. You can see over the last, you know, 5 or 6 years, it's been a pretty high abundance on the grounds, you know, record abundance there in 2022, I think it was, or '23.

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.

Okay, Glenn Merrill is next, followed by Duncan Fields.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the council. My name is Glenn Merrill, uh, today representing both Glacier Fish North Star Fishing Company. 3 Things I wanted to cover with you today briefly. First, I wanted to talk a little bit about prioritization. Second, herring.

And then third, halibut in the Gulf. When it comes to prioritization, I think the ask, at least how I interpreted it from your staff memo here, is to provide some feedback on how the council should look at prioritization and what might be appropriate. 2 Things 2 things in particular that I'd like to recommend that you strongly consider moving forward, and that is number 4 and 5 in your list. Number 4 is look at an approach for staff tasking where you're constraining the initiation, not necessarily discussion, but the initiation of new actions to maybe 1 or 2 meetings a year. And then second is having an annual process, ideally in October, that would look at developing a strategic plan for the coming year.

I think that could be very valuable for all of us. Us. Is there a risk that some things that you think from your industry perspective are a priority that aren't a priority for the Council? Yes. But what it does do is it allows all of us to have a clear, comprehensive understanding of what's important for that coming year.

We help to inform you about what's important for that coming year, and we understand where we're going to be going. I think it helps all of us do a little bit of planning in terms of what to expect coming forward in the future. There are things that we see are critical, we bring them to your attention. It doesn't preclude our ability to address issues related to emergency rules or other issues that require your immediate attention, but it does provide a clear path forward. I think that is helpful for us in industry.

I think it's helpful for staff, and I think it provides some coherence in terms of how we're moving forward. Our current process right now does risk that good issues can be be missed simply because we don't have staff time. Second issue, I think you heard from a previous testifier about the importance of herring issue as priority— as a priority for us. We certainly share that interest and concern and would like to see that continue to move forward. And then third, I think you've heard from a number of folks here at this meeting about potentially looking at issues related to Gulf PSC and particularly trawl PSC in the Gulf of Alaska.

I think you heard from a previous testifier, Ms. Webster in particular, about the low proportion of total removals that are due to trawl PSC. I think that's true in the future. You can look at that issue, but I think the math will show you a few clear things. One, it's relatively small. Two, at least for our fleet, the M80 fleet, and I believe for other fleets as well, it has been relatively consistent and small over time.

3, For our fleet in particular, we catch most of our halibut bycatch not in Area 3A. We catch zero in Area 2C, and it's mostly a 3B phenomenon. And then 4, you'll also find that a small proportion of that, relatively speaking, is going to end up having any trickle-down effect on other users, particularly the charter fleet in Area 3A, where I think we've heard some substantive concerns. You can look at it, but I think you already know the answer. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Merrill. Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Ritchie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Merrill.

I think I heard you say that we— you support limiting initiation of, uh, new, new items in staff tasking but not limiting, um, discussion. That's something I've been trying to figure out in my, my head process-wise of how we do that. Um, and I'm wondering if you could explain that to me, like how exactly we could do that. When I think about discussion here, usually discussion is follows a motion. Um, just walk me through what you're thinking, please.

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Ricci, I think we heard some, some concerns being expressed by the public that if you prioritize and you're going to say select 1 or 2 meetings of the year where you say these are the things we're going to actually initiate action on, that it would somehow preclude members of the public from raising issues of concern to the Council at other meetings. I guess I don't see it like that. I don't— I think that there is an opportunity for the public, say at meeting 1, to say this is an issue and we're concerned about it. We want to highlight this for you. The Council considers that within the context of all of the other concerns are being raised at that meeting and other subsequent meetings.

And then perhaps on an annual basis you're able to look at the suite of issues that you've had as raised as concerns. Some of those resolve themselves during the year, some of them continue to be pressing concerns. You have also an understanding about what are general concerns about either statuses of stocks, specific economic considerations you might have, other social factors, and you can consider all of that together at one time and then initiate something that would address those specific issues. That's one way to approach it, and that's somewhat what I was thinking of.

Thank you. So if I'm reading that right, um, just to, just to clarify, you're supportive of maintaining opportunity for public testimony, um, in staff tasking or what have you at all meetings, but not necessarily for motions following that?

Through the chair, Mr. Ricci, I think that's one approach you could take. The other approach would be we're not going to take testimony on specific actions under staff tasking, and we'll reserve that for one meeting or two meetings. Um, and I think that's at the discretion of the council. I think what you need to think about is how do you best want to kind of structure the desire of the public to engage with you and provide you feedback on what's important with the real-world need that you have to balance that with your limited resources and providing some strategic vision moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Duncan Fields is up next, uh, followed by Linda Benken.

Madam Chair, members of the council, Duncan Fields testifying on behalf of Cape Barnabas Inc. Um, the changes in staff testing is terrible timing and a bad idea. It's not the first time I've disagreed with Gwen Merrill.

The optics in a time of increased intense council scrutiny particularly public concern about Council inaction and Council being deaf to concerns broadly stated. The optics of that is terrible. Why do it now? Why do it in the crucible of intense Council scrutiny?

The Council needs to be disciplined with regard to your calendar, disciplined with regard to your resources, but don't put that on the public and the inability of the public to have a conversation with you and staff testing. I'm looking at the, uh, memo, the graphic here. At other meetings, EDE chair wrap-up only, no public testimony to the council action.

If I'm a concerned member of the public, particularly if I haven't been involved in the council process for period of time. That sounds like a muzzle to me, and I don't think the council should do that.

Certainly you have to prioritize. Certainly internal to the discussion behind the table, you have to limit what council can do, but don't take it out on the public by limiting access. Related to that, um, I think we're approaching this from the wrong end of the telescope. It's sort of depressing because of limited staff, limited resources at NMFS that we can't do what we would like to do. But don't anticipate that it's always going to be this way by changing Council protocols.

I remain optimistic in 2 or 3 years we may get additional funding, we may be able to hire additional staff, the National Marine Fisheries Service should get additional resources, but don't make any action with regard to staff tasking now that's going to put something in concrete. So at a minimum, I would ask that whatever you do with regard to staff testing, you sunset it in 2 years, or you revisit it in 2 years.

That would conclude my testimony, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fields. Really appreciate your feedback. Um, you've, you've been up here as well. Um, I, I really appreciated the memo that Ms. Evans put together. We've been really struggling, of course, with scrutiny for not, not acting fast enough.

Um, we're hearing that from a bunch of different angles, or not picking, um, picking items up. And I think that that was— I think I, I'm trying to formulate a question here, so I appreciate your recommendation to sunset as well. We've seen flat funding for the last 6 or 7 years. I would want to— I'd like to feel hopeful that that's going to change as well. But that hasn't been the trajectory, and that hasn't been the messages or the messaging that we've gotten from the administration at this point.

And so we're trying to take incremental steps that are not shocks to the system while maintaining access for the public and adequate public participation. So when I was reading through the memo, I was thinking not, not thwarting public testimony or an opportunity to provide some general feedback, but shifting some of that to be reports and in, in a different way, uh, and, and maybe just having two meetings where we are, um, we're, uh, really taking opportunity and, or, um, potentially initiating, um, action. So we're not, uh, really building up actions in the, in the bot or the, um, batter's box without being able to make forward progress. And I appreciate the sunset recommendation because that'll allow us to get some of those things kind of in the schedule and moving. So just wondering if you think that that would be an adequate kind of approach, transitioning some of our, you know, the typical opportunity for, you know, wrap-up or initiating new actions into more of a B report agenda item where if something outside of the agenda needs to be brought to our attention, that the public can do that.

So it's more— it's not necessarily a wash, but where there would be opportunity would just be at the beginning of the meeting. So wanted to get your general feedback if you, if you think that, that if we message that appropriate, would that alleviate some of your concerns?

Madam Chair, I really appreciate your detailed assessment of the thought process that you've gone through and the council staff has gone through relative to this issue. I think at every meeting the council needs to preserve an on-ramp to take action if needed. Yes, theoretically any council member can make a motion at any time or at any meeting to move forward, but process process-wise, the staff tasking provides the format for that decision-making. I think it would be a mistake not to provide an on-ramp at every council meeting for the possibility of council action through staff tasking. Truncate it, limit it, give warning that it's unlikely, particularly in the next 18 months.

I think that's what you're foreshadowing. We're just overwhelmed and we can't do anymore. But, but don't eliminate that opportunity. I just think it's an important public policy aspect of this process to have public comment every time you meet. That could facilitate council action should 6 council members be persuaded we concluded that the issue has merit.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Appreciate your feedback.

So Heather McCarty is passing, and we're going to Linda Banken, followed by Chris Woodley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Linda Banken, testifying for Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I want to comment briefly on a range of issues before the council. Just to say thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Ecosystem Committee.

Really excited and challenged by the work. Hopeful that we can contribute to the council's ongoing effort to more fully integrate ecosystem considerations into management. I want to highlight and support the recommended changes from the Ecosystem Committee on the Groundfish Management Plan, but also flag, as a previous testifier did, that the EC was missing our tribal reps at this meeting and ask, as they did, that you hold open opportunities to expand and improve language within the plan aimed at integrating LKTKS into management at the, at future council meetings when this comes up. Briefly, on harvest control rules, I want to strongly support the work that the council's doing on HCRs, especially for long-lived species like sablefish. The recent and current management challenges that we have experienced and continue to with the proposed big cuts to us call for some real changes to the management strategy for the species.

Also on sablefish, we do support the 2— getting rid of the 2% bleeding deduction to improve quality and compliance. That issue has been around and bothering us for a long time. We realize it seems like a relatively small issue compared to a lot before the council, but appreciate the prioritization that it's received. Third, I did not get to testify under B reports. I was tied up at the AP, but do want to express our concern around the EFP allowing retention and donation of halibut.

All of us want to see a reduction in waste, but we want to be very careful that management focus remains on avoiding bycatch and minimizing mortality first, and that only halibut with no chance of survival eventually make it into the donation program under the EFP. And we asked for a real commitment to that in managing that EFP request. Fourth, on a request to— for ABM, or abundance-based management, of Gulf halibut PSC limit. As you have heard from a number of people, the halibut spawning biomass is at historic low levels. It's 25% below where the biomass was in 2014 when the cap was last adjusted.

We're all worried about the status of the stock, as evidenced by the highly conservative catch limits that have been set for the directed fishery. We're all holding our breath waiting for a strong year class or two to rebuild the spawning biomass and concerned that if we get one, we could see significant mortality of that year class at current PSC limits before any action was taken. It is important to reset the bycatch cap to current abundance levels, whether that's through an index attached to abundance or a one-time reduction in the cap to reset it based on current abundance. Whichever approach you choose to pick to move forward with, we'll certainly support that. I will state that we focused on trawl because that sector accounts for the majority of the bycatch, and in full knowledge that it took over 6 years to move ABM in the Bering Sea through the process despite narrowing it down to one sector, one fishery with the Memoniti.

We do not object to looking at bycatch and other sectors, if that feels more fair to this council, but do feel urgency in the ask to reset caps relative to current abundance. I have to express my surprise at the presentation of halibut mortality that combines directed fisheries and bycatch as if all are somehow equal. The council has a national standard responsibility, as you know, to reduce catch. There's no comparable responsibility to reduce directed fisheries. Likewise surprised by this suggestion that only the PSC limited fisheries have limits.

I think I heard the directed fisheries definitely have limits. They also have a harvest control rule where directed fisheries linearly ramp down their catch limits if we fall below below B30. The IPHC will also close directed fisheries if the spawning biomass falls below 20%. Close them completely. The IPHC has no control over trawl catch or bycatch, and the council does not have an OFL for halibut.

The council does have control over the PSC cap, which is why we're asking for the cap to be reduced via an abundance-based approach approach that can fluctuate, or a one-time reduction that reflects current abundance, as you choose to proceed. Thank you. I'll stop there. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'll see if there are any questions.

Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you, Miss Banken. And, um, I actually wanted to ask about the, the HCR your portion of the HCR testimony, and is that just to continue to keep that as a priority or to make it one of the highest priorities? I wanted to make sure I sorted that out. And, and related to that question, we had 3 species identified, um, but I'm starting to get the sense that we need to look at one species at a time, so I'm assuming sablefish is the top priority for your sector.

Ms. Banken, are you still there? I'm so sorry, I'd put myself on mute. Through the chair, yes, Ms. Kimball, thanks so much for that question. I, I wanted to raise HCRs partially because the Ecosystem Committee did look at HCRs, but also because I have heard some pushback, um, at this council meeting and the previous council meeting against moving to the adjusting and to this HCR approach instead of the risk tables. And just to be on record saying we really support moving this direction, um, at least for sablefish.

I am less familiar with the other stocks and how appropriate the HCRs are for those, but for sablefish, we're long-lived, has this episodic, odd way of once in a blue moon having huge year classes that we then depend on for 20 or 30 years, it really seems that we need a different approach to management. And the work that the, that the team has done to look at this hybrid approach under the HCR changes um, makes a lot of sense to our industry, and we want to make sure that continues to move forward. So yes, for our sector, sablefish is the priority, and just want to make sure it stays— this work stays a priority for the council. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your testimony, Ms. Banken.

Thank you. So Chris Woodley is up next, followed by Lancey Wetman.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Council. My name is Chris Woodley, and I am the Executive Director of Groundfish Forum, which is a trade association for the Mm80 sector. Our vessels harvest yellowfin sole in the northern Bristol Bay trawl area in the vicinity of Togiak. Following up on Ms. Baker's comments, we request that if there are future meetings of ADFNG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Kiosaq Walrus Commission to address walrus protections in the Togiak region, that we be included as a stakeholder and partner.

As you know, members of the Kiosaq Walrus Commission provided testimony last December expressing very various concerns over the impacts of the yellowfin sole fishery and other vessel activity on Pacific walrus. At that time, Groundfish Forum committed to meeting with the Kiyosak Walrus Commission, and since then we have met with them twice to improve awareness about our fishery and provide information to regional stakeholders. We have also met with Western Alaska Tanker Lightering Group, whose tankers anchor in Togiak Bay near Cape Constantine and whose tugs and barges deliver fuel to communities— excuse me— communities within the region. We have met with them to share concerns with those vessels' potential impacts upon Pacific walrus. We have also met with regional CDQ leadership and continue to meet with other regional and local leaders.

The last time the council took action on walrus protection, it focused upon vessel routing for fishery fishing vessels with federal fishing permits. We closely abide by those rules, but we would note that within the Togiak region, there are significant state fisheries and non-fishing vessel traffic that do not have FFPs and who are not restricted by those rules, but whose activities are likely to be more intensive and of longer duration than our own. As such, it's important to consider all sources of vessel activity which occur throughout the year. Looking forward, we appreciate the literature review provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at this meeting and believe it is useful to identify current gaps in understanding as well as potential opportunities for on-the-water research— for on-water research.

As we have stated to the Kiosak Walrus Commission, we welcome opportunities to collaborate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, USGS staff in their own— in their research teams to better understand how vessel operations and commercial fishing in the Togiak region may impact walrus. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Woodley.

Are there any questions?

Okay. Thank you for the update.

Lancie Wetman followed by Mary Beth Tooley, and Mary Beth will be our last testifier.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the council. My name is Lancie Wetman, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Alaska Marine Community Coalition, or AMCC. AMCC is a fisherman-founded and fisherman-led organization working to advance sustainable fisheries, healthy marine ecosystems, and thriving fishing communities across Alaska. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the council's agenda item E, staff tasking. AMCC aligns our testimony today with what Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Linda Bacon, has already spoken to about halibut abundance-based management in the Gulf of Alaska.

AMCC too asked the council to task staff with developing a discussion paper on abundance-based halibut PSC limits in the Gulf of Alaska because the current limit does not automatically respond to when halibut abundance falls. In 1989, the Gulf of Alaska trawl halibut PSC limit was set at 3.3 million pounds for the Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery, and then from the late 1990s to around 2012, halibut abundance declined continuously this is according to the International Pacific Halibut Commission's 2025 stock assessment. And despite those declines, the trawl gear PSC limit remained unchanged for more than 2 decades. However, in 2014, the limit was reduced through a 3-year phase-in so that the trawl gear PSC limit was 2.9 million pounds by 2016 and each year thereafter. Then at the beginning of 2024, the spawning biomass decreased to a low of 153 million, and then in the beginning of 2026, the spawning biomass is, is estimated to be 166 million pounds.

Based on the decrease in halibut spawning biomass overall, AMCC respectfully requests that the council evaluate whether the Gulf of Alaska halibut PSC limits could respond more directly to changes in halibut abundance. The Council has already taken this approach in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands through Amendment 123, which links halibut PSC limits for the Amendment 80 fleet to halibut abundance. AMCC encourages the Council to evaluate a similar framework for Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries. In sum, when halibut abundance changes, PSC limits should respond. Thus, AMCC respectfully asks the Council to evaluate an abundance-based management framework for the Gulf of Alaska and determine appropriate next steps.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, thank you. So Mary Battuli will be our last testifier.

This is on when it's red. Yes. So, uh, thank you, Madam, uh, Chair, and, um, for all of you for sitting through all of this today. I'm speaking today on behalf of the O'Hara Corporation, um, on the vessel replacement, the A80 vessel replacement issue that's on your list of priorities and scheduled in December. And I know that you heard from Mr.

O'Hara earlier in the week, and it's not my intent to repeat his testimony. I think he covered the topic well, but I just wanted to touch on, on a couple of issues relative to that. And the first is regulatory consistency. So the industry really makes great investments in participating in these fisheries, and their ability to rely on consistent regulations over time is is an important risk factor that's taken into consideration. And in this instance, I think as you all are aware, you know, these regulations being considered in the action before you have been looked at and crafted over time.

So the first time was in 2008, and when Amendment 80 was formed, the exemptions were put in place. And then these exemptions were then considered again under vessel replacement in 2012 and reaffirmed with some special provisions for the Golden Fleece. So the O'Hara Corporation invested significant resources to get that vessel ready for the 2026 fishery, and in June the Council passed a motion that really threatens the viability of further participation in the fishery. And all that occurred prior to the vessel actually, you know, setting a net. So this overall creates an environment of regulatory instability that increases risks across the industry that are troubling.

Another thing I wanted to just add a little bit to was DEX sorting, because I look around the table and I, you know, see that many people who are here today were not around when DEX sorting was, you know, developed. And Sarah Webster's comments, I appreciate that she laid out the tools that DEX sorting is, you know, and what it—. Things that it does. But to add to it, a little bit of history. It started out with research and EFP process over, you know, an industry process over a good number of years and became a regulatory program in 2020.

For the Defender, I think Frank noted that, you know, the vessel deck sorted 90% of their toes in the Gulf this year. And And when that occurs, you know, with 2 observers on board, we have a sampling station on deck that we've built for this process. We put additional crew on deck, they sort those fish, feed them to the observer, and that observer is taking length and viability assessments at that time. So those fish are then released over the side. There's a mortality savings that occurs through deck sorting, and in the Gulf, that accrues to the overall trawl PSC limit for all vessels participating in the fishery.

So just a little— so that was just really just a little bit more detail for those who are less familiar with the program. And then really lastly, because I'm going to be trying to be as brief as possible today, the process. So the Council in June, in that motion, initiated an action for an item that was not listed on the agenda. Now, that meant that when this occurred, the company was not prepared or present when that discussion took place. And, you know, I think it— I find it troubling that that's a process that's used.

And I know this is not the first time the council has, but I would really encourage you all to think about that and perhaps, you know, refrain from that, that practice in the future. You have a really strong program here where when issues come up, you request white papers, you have information before you, and, and I think it's, um, you should, you should stick to that process. And then lastly, I would just say that having participated personally in, in priority setting in the past, these, these discussions are very, very difficult, a lot of anxiety around them. And so I wish you all very, you know, well for your deliberations here today. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll see if there are any questions.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, um, that, uh, really appreciate all of the thoughtful public feedback that we received during staff tasking. Um, like to stand down for about 15 minutes. If we need longer, we'll just adjust the time on the screen, come back and see what type of follow-up or actions the council would like to take. So please come back at 4:15. Thank you.

Okay, I really appreciate all of the public testimony that we have received throughout the meeting. We'd like to— what I would like to do is circle back to our B report discussion first on priority authorization. Um, would like to open up the floor to, um, some of the primary, you know, the recommendations and decision points and get some general feedback, um, have a limited conversation, and then maybe, um, see if there's a will to put a motion on the table. We did talk to staff and they believe having something, you know, some, some language for guidance would be helpful. Um, so, um, we, we can go through that process and then, um, see if we have any other items that we'd like to wrap up or any new, new actions.

So we're, we're first going to talk through the, the list, um, from the B reports and, and kind of establish a baseline of and see if we can come to a consensus on, or at least, um, a general majority thinking on some top 3 or 4 priorities. And again, that's not to suggest that other items that don't make that top 3 or 4 list are not important, or that they won't even, you know, be on a more expeditious trajectory, because that's really going to depend ultimately on staff timing and, and our resources in alignment with expertise. So, um, we, we will go through that process and then we'll, we'll see if there are any new issues or actions that the, the council would like to take up. So, um, maybe we can talk through— like to do in reverse order from that, that memo that we received and see if we can get some of the maybe easier things off the list before prioritization. So I would like some feedback on the thinking of conducting an annual annual strategic planning session and whether or not they're— yep, there's just thinking on whether or not that's a good idea or any objection to conducting such an activity.

So any thoughts on that? Ms. Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for setting that up. I personally am supportive of committing to an annual strategic planning discussion. Um, I think my memory is that for several years now, as we first had to sort of deal with 100% virtual meetings and then the shift to, uh, from 5 annual meetings to 4, um, Ms. Evans has consistently provided us making space on our agenda for strategic planning as an option to perhaps deal with some of these. It's not only capacity constraints, but just ensuring we have a common understanding of what those constraints might be. And that takes time.

And when there's side conversations about particular projects, it, it all contributes to the greater good, but just making space to have a common understanding of what our capacity is and what some common priorities are, I think is worth making time for and committing to once a year. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Baker.

Mr. Pamplin. Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I agree with Ms. Baker's comments. I, I think an annual approach for strategic planning is very important to do. Um, it's important for our, just our own benefit, but I heard during public comment someone also note that it helps with their planning as well to see what's on the docket and coming up and planning accordingly.

Um, I personally like the alignment in October. Um, there's the alignment with the federal fiscal year. I know it might be different from our council contract year, but still, just to be able to report out what, what did we do each fiscal year, it helps on that front as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Along the lines of Mr. Pamplin there, so do you envision this annual planning session— we're going to go through a prioritization here this afternoon— so would you, um, would that be like in October of next year, or have you put any thought to that?

Um, I, I think October could be a reasonable meeting to do this. I, I don't— I, I'm open to feedback on that as well, but it would be a dedicated space during our agenda so that we're, you know, we're getting public feedback and perspectives on annual priorities. So I do, you know, we know that December is probably off the table as far as a schedule, and it seems the fall is generally a good target opportunity. But if anyone has, um, yeah, anything else to share about ideal timing, that would be— and be welcomed.

Okay, anything else on an annual process? Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support The previous comments on trying to do an annual process, I mean, I would, I would hope it would look somewhat like this process. I don't feel like we could even handle more than this.

Like, we've been asked for just our top 3 things, and that doesn't even indicate that those are the top 3 things coming back to us first. Like, it's just if we— if staff gets in a bind and there's an opportunity to move staff around or prioritize something, they have some direction already set for the council. That's the level at which I think we could do this. I certainly wouldn't want to get in a situation where we're trying to rank all of our actions that have already been tasked, and I wouldn't want to be in a position of starting to let the public think that even the ranking we're doing today dictates when that will come back to us. That's just not the reality of the situation.

So I think this is most important for staff, um, and so I support any kind of process that can help them when they get in a bind on what goes next. Great, thank you, Ms. Kimball.

Anything else on the side of— yes, Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I too share the same sentiments as the others. Um, it sends a clear message of what our priorities are. It sends it to the staff and the public, recognizing their space to do other things along the way, and we're going to learn by doing, and that's a really powerful thing.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else on this?

Okay, okay, so let's move on to, um, staff tasking cadence. Um, I thought this might be an easier one until we got some public testimony. Um, I'll just say that I really appreciated that. I, um, again, I think we're really trying to— we're trying to, um, balance, uh, the, um, our growing list of agenda items, uh, with trying to get some, some time to get those going and make some progress. With the need to constantly and consistently reevaluate needs as they come up in a very limited resource situation.

We were looking at models from other regions. This is very, very common for other regions to take up, consideration of new items at a lesser cadence than we do.

And I think that it's also worth— it's worth talking about as a group. And we also heard some concerns from the public about access and transparency, which, um, we take very seriously and to heart. And we do have, you know, we have a number of agenda items throughout every meeting and opportunities. We will remain or retain all opportunities for public comments and all of our main agenda items, as well as B reports. Um, and always leaving— I think the anticipation would be to leave room for anything unanticipated or an emergency situation that may come up that we need to address at the end of a meeting.

But it's more of how do we, how do we manage a growing workload and reasonably set up expectations to the public as far as the pace by which we can make progress on those items while making sure we're maintaining meaningful public access. And also heard some suggestions that if we do take this up, then maybe we reevaluate and sunset it to make sure that we were understanding potential impacts to public access. I really, I really appreciated that feedback, and I think if we do move forward with reducing the number of staff tasking items, on an annual basis that we probably look at it, you know, in a discrete, limited basis and evaluate whether or not we are, you know, we are compromising access in a way that we had not intended. So, so want to get some feedback from other members and how they're, how they're feeling at this point in the meeting about the potential to reduce the number of staff tasking items per year. Yes, Ms. Vanderhoeven.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I think it's important that we continue to provide multiple opportunities during the year. We've struggled over the years when we've had certain projects that we want certain stakeholders to be available and because of the number of fisheries and the diversity of fisheries, and we hardly ever see crabbers in October, right, because they're getting ready for their fall seasons. And so if, if there was really one opportunity for them to come forward and we're doing this prioritization at October, I don't know that we would get the kind of participation from that sector. We know our May-June timing conflicts with a lot of subsistence activity— activities and gearing up for those.

And so I, I think continuing to provide multiple opportunities during the year for that kind of thing is going to be important to make sure that we provide that access. And I hadn't really thought about that part of it before, and so I appreciate the public comment that we got because that really helped solidify in my mind that we need to maintain a need for multiple opportunities. Thank you, Ms. Vanderhoof. And just a point of clarification on multiple opportunities, are you, um, I guess, are you expressing concern about removing staff tasking as it exists today at all, or, um, are you saying that if we do it, then we need it more than one opportunity a year.

Um, I don't know if I have fully formulated in my head yet exactly what that would be, uh, since that has just kind of come up. I think twice a year might be adequate if we kind of think about, you know, who— what those conflicts tend to be, if we can find two opportunities that work. And otherwise, you know, maybe there's another opportunity or two, and maybe we take things up, but— and maybe we initiate them, but we don't do any prioritization or start working on them until we have that October prioritization discussion. Um, and I'm not set on anything at this point, but I, I just think we need to find a way to make sure that we maintain those opportunities for people to get their ideas to us.

Thank you. And Ms. Baker— oh, Mr. Ricci. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to align myself with, uh, Ms. Vanderhoeven right now.

I think you spoke to it really well, and also to some comments that we heard in public testimony. Um, I really appreciate, like, Thinking this through, I think that there might be some, some merit in, um, looking at time savings and things, and I think that it's an important staff consideration to, to think about how we go about staff tasking. But, um, for me, I think that public participation in this process is key, and I really think that maintaining the opportunity for public comment at the end of every meeting is is really a vital component. That said, I also think that it's important to consider that there's a lot of user groups in the North Pacific that access to these meetings isn't always as easy as it is for others. Or, you know, whether they're made up of subsistence users or active fishermen, I think that it's more challenging for them to access this process than for groups who might have, um, paid representation.

And I just want to make sure that— I think that to be responsive to their needs, I think it would be better to maintain public comment and staff tasking. But that's my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Achi. And Mr. Pamplin— oh, Mr. C. Thanks. I've been thinking about this a lot since we received this presentation on this and had some trepidation about the notion of moving away from staff tasking comments, just because this is a proudly stakeholder-driven process here that we have. And processes, you know, every action we take really comes from input from stakeholders and the public. And that's a great part of this process that we've had.

Being new to the council table, that's one of the things I've looked forward to coming to these meetings before then. It was being able to voice my opinion and my, my, my word about new ideas that can come that could help this process. That said, I am, I am, I'm, I am understanding of the, of the challenges we have with just managing our time here and the and the concerns we have with setting expectations on how long we can— when we can take up an item if it's tasked, and the expectation that's set when someone says— when we say that we're adding— we're tasking an item at a certain time. And so my thought is if we do move to a We move away from every, every meeting staff asking that we do keep it at a 2, 2 meeting, 2 meeting minimum. Um, and we also communicate the, uh, the opportunity for bringing up items in B reports so that we can still hear from the public about items that are important.

Um, and, you know, I think it's a matter of keeping a running list of items that we could take up, uh, at the other meetings that we do tasking so that we can return back to those items, um, when needed. Um, and so, and communicating that that's part of this process is really.

Limiting a voice, the opportunity for someone to bring up an issue at a meeting. Uh, it's just a matter of doing it in a different way. Um, and so I think that's— if we were to move away from every meeting, I would hope that we could set it up and communicate in that way. Um, and I also do appreciate the public comment about it, about a sunset idea, because I think what Miss Vanderhoeven also notes about, you know, certain groups not being able to be at certain meetings during the year, having a sunset or at least a review date to look at this would help us to better evaluate at least which meetings we do take— we do do tasking. So those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. C. Mr. Pam, okay. Miss Baker, sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I generally agree with all the comments thus far, and I'll try to be brief. I appreciate previous council member comments on being concerned about, or making sure we provide the public with the opportunity to comment to us at every meeting. I'll have to be honest, I wasn't worried about that because I have We, we have multiple opportunities. I was thinking about this particular proposal to potentially change the current approach to staff tasking more, that all we are changing in my mind is saying that the council will consider initiating new actions during 2 meetings per year. And that is a limit that we would be putting on ourselves.

Um, and in, in the, the reason I, I heard the testimony today, I appreciate the testimony. I appreciate Councilmember's continued focus on providing public input. I agree that's important. The, the challenge I have encountered with sort of what I'm calling open staff tasking at every meeting, that's both receiving input and the potential for the council to initiate new action. Was particularly, for example, our October and December meetings are very close together, and I don't have— often we don't have a good sense of what our capacity baseline is or what we even already just initiated.

And it— I feel like it's more— it will be more transparent to us and to the public if we say— and I agree with Mr. C about kind of keeping the list of— I would see that as an obligation that a council member would have, and maybe we could work with staff staff to do that, to keep the list going of ideas that we have. And then I just feel like that would make for better decision-making at, you know, 2 times a year. I kind of like that approach too. We have the full list rather than sort of at every meeting, and, um, I just feel like it's more focused and transparent decision-making. And it might not work.

I agree about the sunset too. I think I am supportive of trying it. I understand the criticisms of our considering it, um, but I just really— I earlier, Ms. Kimball mentioned that sometimes the way the current process works, when we initiate something and we're— we don't really know if there's anybody to work on it and it sits in the batter's box, and that gets frustrating for people too. It's just, uh, It's a difficult— setting expectations is really important, and I feel like we would better be able to do that if we try this initiating, committing to considering initiating new actions during 2 meetings per year.

Thank you for that, Ms. Baker. Really appreciate your statements, summation of the, the intent of this, um, So I really, I do hope that alleviates some concern that we heard from the public as far as the overall intent of this, and that it would by no means be, I think, a reflection that we are, we are reducing public opportunity at our meetings at all. It's just really determining when we are committing to initiating new actions so that we can get a hold of our growing list of priorities.

Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you. I know you're trying to wrap up, but I'm, I've just thought, um, I hadn't really thought about how the way Miss Baker couched it, but that does seem to be the intent of the staff. Um, the staff presentation and what we're trying to get at and, and get clear some things off the book. So, so it's possible we could self-regulate and say we're only initiating items maybe for the next year or two at two meetings a year.

But do we need to make a decision on whether we hold public comment on that portion of the agenda at the end of the meeting, at this meeting? I mean, that's, that's the part that I feel like we got more input on was whether public comment would be able to be provided. But I don't want to confuse the issue. If we want to just stick to what we would be deciding at this meeting is, do we limit ourselves to 2 meetings a year to initiate new actions? I'm fine if we limit the discussion to that, and I don't need to complicate it.

Yeah, I, I don't know if we need to decide on that either. I think we would just build in more time during B reports, and it would be kind of a transition, a public transition to understand where, you know, where items not necessarily on the agenda could be brought up to us. So that might, that might take a little while, you know, for folks to pick up on. So we might have to build in more time in B reports and fewer time or less time during staff tasking as we transition. If we, if we do go this direction, I would also note that there have been a couple of times where we've had to drop staff tasking completely because we ran out of agenda time and we can't meet past the ways that we notice, publicly notice these meetings.

So it's not unprecedented to, you know, to try to either to assess whether or not, you know, this is really feasible given everything else we've got going on. So, okay. Okay. Thank you everyone for your input on that.

So I'd like to go to the NIMS, the agency's priorities, the list of priorities. I think our task was to either affirm those or provide any input as to whether or not we concurred or had challenges with those priorities or concerns.

Okay, not— Mr. Pamplin. Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Um, I just want to circle back to the portion, not, not so much on what the NIMPS regional priorities were. Those all made sense to me, um, and the sequence of how those would be rolled out. Uh, the one I wanted to specifically address was, uh, the review that the NMFS Assistant Administrator identified as part of the Restoring America's Seafood EO, and that was to ask the Council to review Stellar Sea Lion closures.

This might be a little bit unique, but I just offer this following as a proposal on how to, how to address this at this early stage. I appreciate the input from industry noting the safety and transit issues, among other potential benefits of revisiting the closures. As well as the concerns we heard from commenters flagging that the western stock of Steller sea lions are still listed as endangered. They remain at a depressed population size, and that there was opportunity cost of this review among other priorities in front of the council. Further, today we heard from several trade industry, uh, trawl— excuse me, several industry trawl trade associations that came together over the past few days and identified a proposal for a focused review.

Based on the, the long history of this issue, I think there's a recognition of the significant work associated with this request from the administrator. And because of that, I'm happy to, to help, uh, have additional conversations with NIMPS and council staff over the next couple months to explore what may be involved in a potential review and explore and estimate the workload associated with this task. And I think in doing so, we'd collectively hopefully be— I would be in a better position to either propose a path forward under a future staff tasking or provide a recommendation that I don't think any further work is needed. So we just offer that as a perhaps an unconventional proposal on, on how to proceed, but just feels like more homework is needed. Thank you for that offer, Mr. Pamplin.

I'll see if there are any responses to that. Yes, Mr. Muller. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Pamplin, for that, um, that suggestion for a path forward here. Um, a couple things we also heard from, uh, the community of ADAC in terms of, you know, the hardships created, um, and urging us to, um, to find a path forward to, to revisit this. Also heard, um, you know, in the halls and whatnot in terms of the, of the, you know, concern with opening up consultation.

And so is it your hope that this process might address that issue as well with the agency and what that might mean so we have a better understanding around the table?

Yeah, through the chair, Mr. Muller, good question. To me, I think would be wanting to just inventory the body of work that might be involved with a review of Stellar Sea Lion closures and then what the action would be to amend those regulations.

Compliance with NEPA, MMPA, ESA, etc., I think would all be part of, of that assessment to bring back to the council.

Yes, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair, and, um, thank you for your suggested path forward on this, Mr. Pamplin. Um, I think one element That would be important to consider in this discussion is also is the, the recent change to the, the definition of harm as it relates to ESA, and specifically that harm no longer includes indirect effects like reduced prey availability. I think that's a really important piece of this. Thank you.

Yes, Miss Kimball. Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Pamplin, for putting those ideas out. I just want to confirm that you're talking about letting the council know and the public know of spending some of your own time to try to sort out what that looks like. It's not a council motion or council endorsement of moving forward with anything regarding changing Stellar Sea Lion measures.

I just want to confirm that, um, because I was not going to go down that road with taking up Stellar Sea Lion measures, but I certainly would, would support you working on your own and, and letting us know what that looks like in the future. Um, it is a little unusual, but it, it's probably warranted, and I'm— I just want to confirm that that's the direction you're thinking. That, that is a perfect characterization of what I'm proposing.

Mr. C. Thanks, uh, Mr. Pampolin. I just then to confirm on that then. So you said who your interest would be to come back in a few months, but is that— would that be to report back at the December council meeting, uh, on what your, what your thoughts are in some informal way, or what's your intent in terms of how you would provide your feedback back to the council and stakeholders about this?

Yeah, through the chair, thanks, Mr. C. I would envision, um, having conversations with, with NMFS, with the council staff, um, as well as potentially the Science Center Marine Mammal teams to, uh, kind of understand the state of the information, the regulatory framework that this would be included, and then report back at a future staff tasking, being mindful that we're having a conversation about when staff tasking might occur. And so would it— it would be at whatever the next staff tasking is, is available, um, to bring this topic back.

Thank you, Nate. Uh, Mr. Pamplin, and I just— I do appreciate your, your creative thinking on this, uh, because I, I do also— I'm very sympathetic to the, to the idea of looking at these, uh, closures just as a matter of, of policy and practice to look at some of these, uh, but I'm also very concerned about some of the what we might run into in terms of the process and the amount of time it's going to take us to take these on. So I'd love to find a way to address this in a way that threads that needle of sorts. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Miss Kimball.

Thank you. I just want to say one more time that we're in this discussion, we're not anticipating requesting a report from Mr. Pamplin, correct? That this is like me spending my own time working with CQE folks to understand the state of the state before I bring a motion forward. So I, I just don't want this to be characterized as a report, and we're sending Mr. Pamplin off to work with council staff or NIMP staff on behalf of the council. I think that's— I appreciate the, you know, strangeness of this and the creative thinking, but I don't want it to be so confusing that we've, we've now launched into a Stellar Sea Lion protection measures analysis.

So I, I just— maybe the wording was triggering for me, but this is just Nate working on his own.

I appreciate you saying that. To me, that what I'm referring to the word report here, I'm using it as a verb, not as a noun. And secondly, uh, that I would help— I would ask that I have access to some, you know, council staff be invited to a meeting, NMFS and Marine Mammal Team invited to a meeting where we unpack this issue. And then I would verbalize that back to the council at a future staff tasking discussion.

Through the chair, uh, Mr. Pamplin, I, I'm, I guess I'm getting my head a little bit around this, um, unconventional idea, and I, I definitely want to provide support to you. Um, it is our practice, uh, to do work for you, and so when you ask us to have a meeting, usually we take time to prepare for that meeting by doing the work. Um, and I recognize the difference between writing a report and talking about it, but I, I guess I just want to be clear that's it's not going to be a zero-work exercise. Talking with you would require preparation from our staff and, uh, Mr. Kerlin's staff to be in a position to be able to have that conversation, even if we're not actually writing the report. And, and that's okay, but I think that that's, um, important to be clear about, that, um, we don't have all this knowledge immediately in our head that we can just meet with you for an hour and talk about it.

We probably need to also do a little bit of digging to make sure that we have the right information and the appropriate completeness of information to be able to make that useful.

Oh, yes. I also appreciate the creative thinking here, and I think we have to do more of that in the context of reduced resources. I just— I want to be mindful of, of course, the amount of staff work that might be diverted to it, at least at these very cursory stages. So thanks some conversation probably is warranted, and I, you know, you and I can discuss, you know, what those needs may look like after some of your first conversations with agency. Okay.

Okay, thank you. I think we're ready to move on to anything. I'd like to start with items that we might want to remove from our priority list. Maybe activities that we no longer see a need for because they've been folded into something else, or, or are no longer priorities for the council. So open up the floor to anything on that list of 22 items.

Yes, Mr. Kerlin. I'm sure I don't want to throw a wrench into things, but you had You had introduced this, this last discussion as addressing the issues that the agency had raised, and there was also the blood sablefish item and some of the other lesser items that were included in the agency's letter. So if you want to circle back to those things, that's fine. I just wanted to flag that.

Thank you, Mr. Krillin. Um, we can do that. Yes, Miss Kimball.

Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Kerlin. I, I guess I just wanted to ask, since we're having an open discussion, is the intent is then to respond to the agency and say how we're addressing each of these things? So I guess maybe to Mr. Kerlin, like, we have the, the 2% IFQ deduction for blood staplefish in the, in the works. It's already been tasked, so I, I felt like responding to the agency and saying that's where that sits in the work plan was sufficient. But did you see something else associated with that?

Madam Chair, Ms. Kimball, no, not necessarily. I just again wanted to make sure that the Council was at least considering all the items that the Assistant Administrator put on the table, you know, including assessing FMPs for removing species. We talked about potentially tasking staff to do a product on that and then responding in whatever manner the Council C-FIT. Thank you. I was going to address that one next through the chair.

I just, um, what I heard in the staff presentation is, is work has already been done to do that, and we continually look at whether species should be moved into the ecosystem component. But there's fairly recent work that's almost completed, and I, I don't know if we have to have a motion on that, um, Ms. Evans, but it seemed as if a nod that Yeah, wrap that up and include it in the letter as our response was appropriate. I didn't think it needed to come back through the council, but I may have misunderstood.

Through the chair, Ms. Gimble, I think what we can do is put that report together if there's something surprising that would— is not what we have conveyed to you when we talked about this last year. So we do find some— I don't anticipate this, but just recognizing that we haven't completed that, tied the bow on that work. If so, if there's something surprising, then we would bring that to you. Otherwise, we can submit that if our findings are similar to what we anticipated, which is that we have done as much as we can with curating our FMPs in terms of the management of species, then we would go ahead and submit that to National Marine Fisheries Service. Or if there's something surprising, we'll bring it back to you, and we can commit to doing that in December, at least to alert you of where we're at with that.

Through the chair, that, that sounds appropriate to me. We did a significant amount of work already, so tying that up sounds— and then alerting the council if there's something unexpected that comes up sounds good. And then the last one from Mr. Curlin was the EFPs, and that's already in our work plan, and I think conveying that we agree that that's a priority and it's already part of our work plan and that we're aware that the agency is already moving through the process to make our regulations consistent with national regulations. And we think that's an appropriate way to address that. I mean, that's, that's wrapping up the, the 4 things.

Um, but I don't know if Mr. Curlin thinks we need a stronger response. Uh, Madam Chair, I don't. That, that sounds fine. Okay, great. Thank you, Ms. Kimball.

Mr. Curlin.

Hey, no, um, would like to circle back to any items that we'd like to take off the list.

Mr. Ritchie.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have an item that, um, I think should be taken off the list. Um, I think that, uh, I'm looking at it here in number 6, streamline charter management measures timing. Um, it's cast in December of '23, but it's not yet scheduled. Um, it would consider a 1-year lag in management measures or setting measures for 2 years at a time.

Um, I see that as kind of being in conflict with the, uh, intent of the, of the RQE, where we would be adding, um, access every year. So I, I believe that that should be removed.

Thank you. And Mr. C. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also offer one on the sablefish motion scales paper to remove that. And I, I want to just offer a little bit of context for that. We, the Fraser Longline Coalition, did offer that and asked that that be initiated a few years back.

But since then, we've gone down the path of looking, exploring for an EM program on our— on the Friesland Line fleet. And through discussions with that, it's become apparent that it's likely that there's going to be some additional— could it be some changes on the requirements and regulations surrounding motion scales, flow scales? And so it would likely make some sense to incorporate that into that action when we get to that point. There's also conversations that need to be had and steps that need to be taken by the company that makes the flow scales, and I haven't seen any indication that they'd be willing to make one change and then turn around and make another change to their software, um, in the short term. So I think realistically, uh, it makes sense to combine that with some future action, but also I will note if that other action doesn't come around, I'd like to reserve the right to bring it back.

So, um, that's what I'll say on that.

Thank you, Mr. C. Anything else?

Ms. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I would propose to remove the pot gear regulation consistency, and that was one of the staff recommendations in the discussion paper. And again, um, Without prejudice, it's, it's not that it's a good idea, not a good idea to pursue regulatory consistency, but the staff noted that other priorities likely prevent NIMS from preparing this paper in the near term. So I think just removing it at this point would be consistent with what we're trying to do here.

Thank you. Ms. Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. And then one more is, um, just make sure I get the electronic monitoring for the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program. It's noted in the table.

It wasn't actually an action tasked by the council. It was just sort of, uh, placeholder to develop an EFP in the future. And, uh, again, while, uh, that, that project would have great merit, um, unfortunately, uh, there is really no one to move that forward right now. So I think we should remove it from our list. Thank you, Ms. Baker.

Okay, anything else? Yes, Ms. Evans. Just noting that, uh, that one is also something that you had reflected on your EO work plan, um, so that I'm taking from this conversation that if that's your intent, that we would also remove it from the EO work plan for the same reason.

Ms. Kimball, through the chair. Yeah, I would, I would agree with that and taking it off the work plan. I mean, I, I think it's, it's something we would all want to see, but EFPs are proposed, designed, developed by the public and brought to the council and, and in conjunction with the agency's work to help develop it into the best scientific application it can. So we— there is nobody bringing that forward right now, so it just seems kind of disingenuous to have it on a work plan. Um, I think the council would be happy to see an EFP application and consider it at that time, but it's not being worked on, as Ms. Baker noted.

Thank you. Okay.

So like to move to, um, the last item, which would be, um, identifying kind of a top 3, maybe 4 priorities. And again, this isn't— this is just to signal where some directional guidance to, to staff in the case that we have a bottleneck, and all else being equal, there's a decision between 2 actions, knowing that there might be other items not on this list might indirectly be prioritized because of staffing and in other circumstances. So just want to open up the floor so for some ideas, and then we will take a stand down and see whether or not we have a motion. So, Mr. Bowers. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I would like to prioritize Gulf of Alaska Tanner crab protection measures. You know, this item is scheduled for initial review in February, so there's already been a lot of work done on it. I'd hate to lose that. And more importantly, I think this is an important action for the Council to consider in reducing, potentially reducing crab bycatch, and it's consistent with, you know, a number of actions the Council's taken recently in that same direction.

Thank you, Mr. Bowers. That was one on my list as well.

Ms. Vanderhoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would, I would offer as a priority the Bering Sea herring PSC limit change. I was just trying to find that really nice table that Ms. Evans had put together with kind of the things to think about as we prioritize, and it really checks a lot of the boxes and can help us with some of the bycatch concerns, and it does affect a lot of vessels within the Pollock fleet, and I would like to see that as one of the priorities. Thank you, Ms. Vanderhoeven.

Ms. Baker.

Go to Mr. C and then Ms. Baker. Thanks. So I have one issue to bring up, but I also had one question in regards to prioritization. And with the Tanner crab and the herring PSC issue coming up, there's also— those are also issues on our February SSC schedule that we— which we also need to address, or in some way, in terms of reducing that number, the workload on the, on the SSC meeting. And so I'm curious if, uh, how that fits into this prioritization discussion.

If we prioritize both of those, uh, is that a matter of finding another date for this, for pushing one to away from the February meeting while still prioritizing an issue like this, or is that something that we would just look to address in some other way by looking at another another issue on that SSC schedule, for example. So I was hoping to get some clarification on that. I think Ms. Evans can assist with this as well, but I would, I would think that it would provide some good direction for identifying which one of those items might need to be moved to a future agenda and if you had any other insights. But yeah, I do think it would be informative. But again, you know, if something unanticipated happens with the timing of one of those analyses, then we would have to reassess.

Through the Chair, just to add a little bit to the Chair's comments, of the 4 items on the SSC's agenda right now in February, coho and salmon is the only one that's really time-fixed because that has— it's a required item and it has a number of implications for specifications. So the other two were the ones that you referenced, and also EFH. I think there's some flexibility for that EFH review agenda item also to move perhaps to May. Basically, we're looking to probably move one of those items to the May agenda— May meeting. And I think that this conversation will help the Chair and I as we talk about the specifics of what's available and what's the best planning for each of those meetings.

So we'll use that as a guidance, as is our habit, to finalize agendas as we get closer to those times based on information that is available, both about your priorities, your direction, and also staff capacity. So continuing to have those conversations.

Thanks, that's, that's helpful. And I don't have a perspective or opinion on which one you might want to move. I just wanted to have some understanding on that. So if I could, the other one issue I did want to raise, and also ask about a little context on this, but is the initial review on the lead level 2 observer certification issue. I'd like to see Council communicate in some way that that's a priority.

For taking that up. I think time is, is past due to be taking that up. It's part of the executive order response plan that we put forward, and we've heard testimony from 3 groups here this week about the importance of moving forward with that, the challenges that's creating for our observer program, full coverage across many different fleets. So I think there's a lot of need to take that up. As scheduled.

The one part of it that makes me a little bit unsure about making it one of our top priorities is just because of the nature of— right now, I think the holdup is that we have challenges on the agency side with, with some tasking, with some resources to, to get that done. So I might offer or request some feedback in terms of the best way to approach signaling Council's, you know, prior intent or interest on that, or, or if there's another way to ensure that it remains on our schedule and that we can get those resources committed to get that done.

Just following up on that comment, and, um, through the chair, Mr. C, I think it's helpful to have this conversation, and we'll take that back when we talk with the agency about resources. We've already had conversations with the Observer Program about that, moving that analysis forward, and we'll continue to do that. I would just circling back to the 4 items that are on the— or the items that are on them, the SSC agenda for February. The lead level 2, or that's not on the SSC, that's on the council agenda, but lead level 2 and the EFH action, we're a little bit more dependent on agency input for those two actions. I think the herring bycatch and the Gulf tanner crab are largely analytical products that we are accomplishing within our staff.

So in terms of providing, you know, feedback on how to address particular scheduling of these issues, those are factors that we'll take into account and have conversations with the agency after this meeting as well as we set up the schedule and looking at those capacity constraints. But I can be a little bit more confident, I think, about the two Gulf Tanner and Herring bycatch actions or Herring PSC limit actions because I know that our staff are doing the majority of work to pull us together. Obviously, we still rely on agency input, but we're not, you know, the other two actions really do require a lot of expertise from from NEMS, so we will continue to assess those as part of the conversation about scheduling.

Mr. Pamplin. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just maybe a question for Ms. Evans, just to report or circle back to EFH, not from the SSC review of the fishing effects model, but just as a topic. For the council. Um, in, in your prioritization framework, I believe you had EFH— while an MSA requirement, you had it as a kind of a discretionary topic because of the every 5-year nature of it.

And so just, could you just clarify, do you need us to signal that that MSA requirement's important? Like, do we need to advance that as one of our 3 or 4 priorities, or is that something that that you would be booking and scheduling out anyway. Through the Chair, I think that's a good thing to bring up, particularly for that one. We have— we're aiming to bring that— the timing for bringing that EFH review is scheduled to be in 2028, but in order to have a report in 2028, there are steps that we have to work backwards from, and some of them take quite a long time because it involves talking with stock assessment authors and getting their review of the different EFH components. That's part of our standard EFH process.

So there is a little bit, some wiggle room of time as we think about scheduling for that review. We also have limited capacity for RSSC to take up issues in the fall time period, so we're a little bit more limited trying to get their input in the spring, like the February-May meetings, a little harder in the October-December time frame. So, so yes, that is the reason why we put it in the discretionary bucket, if you like, of thinking over the next couple of years. But there's I think it's, it's useful to hear from you if you want that to be information that you want to ensure comes back to you, particularly, particularly the next step, which is reviewing that phishing effects model information, you know, as soon as possible to ensure we can make sure that that review is the quickest that we can get to it, then that would be helpful to signal. If you are want— we will continue to make sure that we get that done at the within that, our MSA requirements.

Um, but if that's something that's sort of a high priority for you compared to other things, to have that done as soon as possible, or kind of the soonest on the range of time frame we can get that done, that's useful to hear.

And Ms. Kimball— uh, Ms. Baker.

Um, thank you. Through the chair, I, I, um, I don't want to get into, um, the details of the SSC agenda, but I mean, I think there's been a lot of interest in the fishing effects model, and, and we've been planning on it for February, and I'm just hearing from Ms. Evans that we can't really control whether that's ready to come back. But if I'm expressing that I would like it to be on the SSC agenda and stay on that agenda along with the other things if it is ready. I'm not sure how we're— how you want us to deal with the SSC agenda, but it was on the screen during the presentation. Otherwise, I would just like the chair and the ED to deal with SSC agenda, and then we can stop this part.

Thank you for that request. We can certainly do that. Stop this part.

Ms. Baker. Not quite yet. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would propose to prioritize the Pelagic Trawl Gear Performance Standard action.

And similar to, I think we've got 2 others proposed by other council members, I did really look at the table of information that Ms. Evans compiled, and I think you're all aware the pelagic trawl gear performance standard has been a pretty high-profile issue and of great interest in this process. It does affect all of our Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska fleets who use pelagic trawl gear. And I also, in considering all of the potential actions, that I would consider prioritizing relied heavily on the NIMS engagement needed column that Ms. Evans put together. And I would note that this is largely— although like Ms. Evans said, is some NIMS staff engagement is always needed on all actions. I think largely at this stage that would be more within the control of of Ms. Evans and council staff to make progress on that.

So I'm proposing that.

Thank you, Ms. Baker.

Okay, not seeing any other hands. I would like to take a, a brief 10-minute stand down, um, come back and see if, um, any council members would like to offer a motion based on what we just discussed, and, um, we can just to make sure that we have something in writing for staff moving forward. So let's come back at 5:33 sharp and see what the wishes of the council are.

Welcome back, everyone.

So just had a discussion on our prioritization. Item from B report, and we have a motion that we're waiting to get on screen here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The motion reads: the council intends to hold an annual strategic planning discussion to develop priorities for the upcoming year. The council intends to change the current approach to staff tasking and consider initiating new actions during 2 meetings per year. The council ED and chair will assess potential modifications to the B agenda item to provide additional time for public testimony during the meetings where new actions are not initiated. The council will revisit this decision after 1 year.

The council affirms NEMSIS implementation priorities provided in the October 2026 B-2 management report. The council removes the following from the list of previously tasked actions: electronic monitoring for Gulf of Alaska rockfish program, pot gear regulatory consistency, NMFS-approved motion scales in sablefish fishery, streamline charter halibut timing. The council prioritizes the following previously tasked actions to guide allocation of staff resources: pelagic trawl gear performance standard, Gulf of Alaska Tanner crab protection measures, Bering Sea herring prohibited species catch limit changes. With a second, I'll speak to the motion. Thank you for the second, Mr. Pamplin, and Ms. Baker.

Thank you for the second, Mr. Pamplin. I'll try to make this pretty brief. I tried to capture the discussion that the council just had in, in the order of topics in which we held it, and Um, so just going through, uh, I think we had pretty clear consensus on holding an annual strategic planning discussion. I tried to, in terms of moving on to the next topic, to consider a change in the current approach to staff tasking. I tried to be responsive to the concerns we heard in public comment and, and some of the comments from the chair in terms of assessing potential modifications to the B agenda item to ensure that we are adequately providing opportunities for public testimony during those meetings when we are not considering initiation of new actions.

And again, to be responsive to public comment, I am proposing that we will— the Council will revisit this decision after 1 year.

The Council, I think the affirmation of, of NEMSIS implemented priorities provided in the B2 report is pretty self-explanatory. Seem to have consensus on that. We also seem to have consensus on removing the list of 4— excuse me— already tasked actions that we went through. I think the rationale was provided pretty clearly for each one of those. And finally, for the actions that I'm— the previously tasked actions that I'm proposing we prioritize, I am proposing 3 that, that council members put forward: the pelagic trawl gear performance standard, Gulf of Alaska Tanner crab protection measures, and the Bering Sea herring PSC limit changes.

And again, I think council members provided strong rationale for those changes, and I would be happy to take any questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you for compiling all of our discussion into a motion, Ms. Baker. Um, I'll see if there are any questions. Yes, Miss Vanderhoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Baker, for your motion.

Um, I, I noted on my list, um, we had also flagged potentially the lead level 2 issue, and I don't see that on your list. And I guess my question is, can, can you speak to why that wasn't included? Thank you, Ms. Vanderhoeven. Um, yes, I, I did listen to the discussion on that one, and it, it seemed to me that of the 3 actions put forward by council members that I've included in this motion, um, we pretty heavily weighted the need for NIMPS involvement in moving forward— NIMPS staff involvement moving forward with the analysis, and I just felt pretty strongly that this first, um, try that we're making at this prioritization process, it just really felt, um, more important to me to really identify those actions where council staff are the, the primary resource included in moving the document to the next stage. And I just felt like the lead level 2 endorsement criteria action that we're looking at, at least all of the information that I have is, is that we really need a specific input from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Observer Program.

And I'm not being critical, I completely understand, but prioritizing that, it just feels very different than the other three in terms of our ability to control that or really affect the outcome. And so I didn't include it. Um, that's the— that was my thinking, Ms. Vanderhoeven.

Thank you. Um, any other questions?

Any amend— yes, Ms. Kimball. Thank you. Maybe just, um, one question on the bottom 3. We, we were not asked to put our priorities in priority order, so I'm assuming those 3 are not in any priority order. We don't need to make a statement like that, is that correct?

Through the chair, thank you, Ms. Kimball. My intention was that these are not in any priority order, correct?

We can just put them in a circle just to underscore that. Some Venn diagrams. Um, any other questions? Any amendments?

Mr. C. Thank you, uh, Chair Travnicka, and I appreciate, uh, this motion, and I, I appreciate, uh, Ms. Baker's, uh, rationale for, uh, for the, uh, for what she's brought forward here. For consideration, and also appreciate the comments about the LEED Level 2 Observer Certification. With that said, I would like to propose an amendment to add the LEED Level 2 Observer Certification to the priority list, and I would— the reasoning for that, I—. One moment. Oh, yeah, sorry.

Need a second. So we have a second, and we'll just, um, I think we all will just— yeah, you can speak to it as Nicole is adding it to the list. Go ahead. Thank you. So I, um, again, I appreciate, um, Miss Baker's comments about, uh, the rationale for these 3 items.

I believe the 4th, adding this one to the list is important because of the testimony we've heard from the public about the need for acting on this issue, to take some action to address the challenges we've had that have been identified for many years about the shortage of Lead Level 2 observers and the need for changes to allow for easier certification 4 of those observers. We've had— we've had measure— we're taking actions as a region that are going to make things more difficult through— for LEED Level 2 certification to occur, including with electronic monitoring programs. So we're going to be limiting the platforms for being able to take on to certified lead Level 2 observers. So I think this is a need that's getting more acute and has been identified by our providers as something that observer providers that needs to see action as soon as possible. We've heard from some testimony about the challenges this is, the burden this is putting on our, on our fishermen in terms of extra costs, to, in order to, uh, accommodate, uh, lead level 2s and ensure we have lead level 2s on our fleets.

So I think, uh, there's a real need here for that. Um, I understand, uh, that, uh, there's some limitations here in terms of how much council can in fact, um, in control when we get to an analysis because of there's, because of the resource limitations at, at, uh, the agency. That's, I, I understand that. I think My perspective is that Council signaling that this is a priority that we need to get done may, may help and provide some further direction to the agency that there's a need here to find those resources to take care of this issue now at the scheduled— when it— at the scheduled February meeting, so we can move forward with this and we can we can see some resolution to some of these ideas. And so I would ask for consideration for that.

I'm happy to take some additional questions.

Thank you, Mr. C. Are there any questions? Yes, Miss Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. C. I appreciate your amendment and, and you're speaking to it. And so is it correct of me to assume that your expectation, should your amendment pass, is that essentially council staff would not really do anything different than they have been doing if, if this motion passes, other than staying in communication with FMA about progress there?

Or do you expect council staff to do something different than they would have otherwise done if this amendment passes?

Thanks. I I, I don't— my, my understanding would be that council staff wouldn't be doing anything more on this. I think this is signaled that this needs to stay on our, uh, that we as council want this to stay on the agenda, um, and that it's a signal to the, uh, to, uh, the agency that we need to have the resources allotted to ensure this happens, um, so that we can move forward with this, uh, which again, I understand that's a little bit outside of, um, of the— your approach, the approach on these other 3 bullets, but I, I feel like that, um, this would help to ensure that there's that, uh, those resources allotted to that to get this done.

Thanks. Any other questions for Mr. C?

Any comments on the amendment?

Yes, Miss Vanderhoof. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. C, um, thank you for the amendment. Um, I am going to support it. This is an issue that I've been dealing with in one capacity or another for more than 25 years, and over that period of time.

I've watched it stall out repeatedly and only get worse over time. I'm personally familiar with a couple of vessels that have dealt with the hoops Observer providers are jumping through to try to keep vessels from being stuck at the dock for lack of observers with the appropriate lead Level 2 accommodations, and in some cases rotating observers every 12 days to get those observers in the right places and the right number of hauls to qualify for lead level 2. And that's— it's incredibly disruptive to the observers as well as to the vessels. I don't think they've actually had to leave anybody stuck at the dock, but it's getting really close on a repeated basis. And I think this I think, as Mr. C noted, not necessarily any particular additional workload on council staff, but I does— I think it does help signal our intention to the agency that, that this is a priority and we need to finally really try to deal with this so that we can move on.

As Mr. C noted, we continue to introduce programs that reduce those training platforms. Um, and so we need to find a way to provide some relief, and so I will be supporting it. Thank you. Okay, any other comments on the amendment?

Miss Kimball. Thank you. Um, thank you for the amendment, Mr. C. I, I'm really torn on this because I, I really was more in line with Miss Baker's thinking on the types of analyses, really council staff directed or heavy staff load for council staff, not agency or Science Center staff as being the purpose of this exercise. So I see it's a signaling to the agency that that's important, but I, I don't see that it makes any change in the timeline for that work to be done. In addition, like moving that up into the list of 4, you know, I would've picked up the ACL Overridge's in-season authority to ensure we have a pathway for NIMS in-season management to deal with a situation in which we, exceed an ACL, you know, more than 2 times and being able to stop fisheries in season.

That wasn't done for this meeting, what I understand was based on just staff capacity, not having the time to prepare that for October. So I think there's some other ones that would fit up in that category if we start to go that direction.

So I'm really uncertain, especially as chair of the Fishery Monitoring Committee, because I definitely hear about that idea, and it is a monitoring issue, so it is a high-level issue. I just don't know that moving it into that list really makes any difference in the amount of work done. So I'm, I'm still pretty torn, but thanks for putting it on the table.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Okay. Um, I'm really torn on this one too. I think it is, uh, very important and an issue we've worked on for— we've been following for a very long time. Um, but I, I'm questioning the utility of putting it in, um, the top 3 considering the limited, um, uh, control we have over the trajectory. And, um, I did really appreciate Ms. Baker's approach and thinking when it came to what was more in our scheduling purview, and that this exercise is really to guide our staff in those tough trade-offs.

And that one just seemed, you know, very important, but not necessarily meeting that criteria or thinking. So, yeah, so I'm, yeah, also struggling with that one. We're going to take a roll call vote and see how others are feeling about this, and then we will move on. Okay, through the chair, this is calling the roll on the amendment to the prioritization motion to add the Level 2 endorsement criteria to the priority list, beginning with Mr. Kurland. No.

Mr. McIntosh? No. Mr. Muller? Yes. Mr. Pamplin?

Yes. Mr. Ritchie? Yes. Mr. See? Yes.

Miss Vanderhoeven? Yes. Miss Baker?

Yes. Mr. Bowers?

Yes. Miss Kimball?

No. Mr. Abnica?

No. That motion passes 7-4. Okay, we have an amended main motion. Any further amendments?

Okay.

Any further discussion, comments?

Yes, Miss Kimball, and then Mr. Bowers and Miss Kimball. This is on the main motion. So, correct. Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, this, this was a challenging topic for a new council member.

So maybe I should go right in. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking first, but I appreciate the approach that Ms. Baker took in her motion. I think it's a well-crafted motion, um, and I really appreciate the comments we heard from the public on this. And I'm very sensitive to access to the council. I, I think we need to preserve that for the public, and I think this most motion strikes a good balance between preserving that public and being responsive to the staff tasking challenges that we heard.

Um, I, I support the, uh, the 4 items that we're removing from the list of previously tasked actions. Some of those, um, you know, have been in the batter's box for 3 or 4 years, and, um, I agree with the 3 items that we're prioritizing.

In, in whatever order they are eventually taken up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. And Miss Kimball? Thank you.

Just briefly, I support the motion, and I appreciate Miss Baker putting something on the table as a starting point for us to discuss details. Um, I, I guess I would just call out that again, that this doesn't mean these are the now 4 items that will come back to us first, but I think it does respond to, um, the staff's need to try to work through some prioritization when we get to those kind of challenges. I also just want to say, even though I didn't put this on the table as a new bulleted prioritization point, that there are things that have come up pretty recently, that actions that look smaller but really are in line with the public does not know how to be consistent with federal regulations when there's either different interpretations that have come online that are different from historical interpretations, or there's just confusion because new regulations have been layered onto old regulations. We've had this discussion in June. I think those are still— should be a pretty high priority for the Council and especially for the agency to have a clear set of regulations so the public knows how to be consistent with the law.

And so I didn't try to move those into the top prioritization, but I just think we should be cognizant when those come up. And really do our best to get those through the process. I thank Ms. Baker for the motion, and I'll support it.

Thank you, Ms. Kimball. And Mr. Ritchie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Baker, for the motion. Um, I like everything that I see here.

My sticking point is just in the, um, limited opportunity for, for tasking, uh, new motions. I think I spoke to it in um, previous— previously, um, but I appreciate your, your attempt here to, to come to a compromise position with the public and, uh, staff and the limitations of this process. Um, I, I think I'm gonna know just because of that, that second paragraph there, but I'm, I'm still making my mind up, and I just want to really express thanks for the work on this motion and coming to a compromise position.

Thank you, um, Mr. Ricci. I, um, I think that the conversations that we've had over the, um, the staff tasking agenda item are, I think, really clarifying for, for me, um, both, you know, the— in the memo and, um, Ms. Baker's statements about the, um— and I, and I think how how the council is thinking about this, and it is really, um, uh, just assessing the cadence of taking up new actions, and that we will be looking at— I appreciate the inclusion of this second sentence in that second paragraph— that the ED and myself will be looking at opportunities to, um, uh, to adjust the schedule and increase time during B reports for other issues that aren't necessarily agendaed during those meeting cycles that we're not taking up new action. So I— this is again just a different, I think, moving our traditional staff tasking comment period, shifting that. And we'll also be looking at transitions in the meantime to ensure that everyone is up to speed and understanding changes, and then reassessing after a year if this does not work. So I think all of those things are responsive to the public and clarifying as far as the intent of this.

Mr. Muller.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I too have struggled with this. I agree with Ms. Baker's motion on, on the lower half of it. And, and, but I've had some, you know, serious concern relative to the staff tasking, uh, changes that we're making here for some of the reasons that Mr. Ritchie, um, has already articulated. Um, but given your comments, Madam Chair, um, and the fact that we are going to revisit this in one year, the fact that we, um, that it's, it's, uh, sounds like it can be somewhat of a fluid topic relative to the agenda between you and the executive director.

And again, I'm, I'm going to support it with some reservation on the, on the changes to the staff tasking side of things. I do certainly appreciate Ms. Baker's attempt to balance everything that we're faced with here in this climate and the, the staff constraints and the resource constraints, but I will support the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Muller. Any final comments? Okay, thank you for all the work that you put into this, Ms. Baker, and for the, the council's engagement on this. I know this first time we've done this, um, at least since I've been around, and I think that it's a work in progress. And so looking forward to continuing this discussion as we just assess new issues and priority needs in our fisheries.

So with that, I think we'll need a roll call vote.

Okay, Madam Chair, calling the roll on the amended main motion to set priorities for the Council and establish process changes. Mr. McIntosh. Yes. Yes. Mr. Muller?

Yes. Mr. Pamplin? Yes. Mr. Ritchie? No.

Mr. See? Yes. Miss Vanderhoeven? Yes. Miss Baker?

Yes. Mr. Bowers? Yes. Miss Kimball? Yes.

Miss Curland—. Mr. Curland? Yes. Mr. Abdika? Yes.

Passes 10 to 1.

Okay, um, thank you. I, I just want to quickly say, I, I know we've been talking about a lot about resource constraints and staff capacity and, um, and challenges with moving agenda items, but we've also, um, been able to achieve a great deal over the last few years. Both in, you know, some really meaningful bycatch minimization efforts, and as well as efforts that have increased the efficiencies of our fisheries and improved access for our fishermen. So I think we have a lot to be proud of, and, you know, that is due to members around this table, as well as members of the public, agency, and department staff.

So just wanted to acknowledge all of the hard work and all of the actions that we've been able to get across the finish line as well.

Okay, so I'd like to take some time to wrap up any other issues or items that we want to that we heard over B reports or any actions? Yes, Mr. Bowers.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak briefly to an issue that came up during staff tasking. Several folks that testified raised the issue of Bering Sea and Western Gulf Pacific cod stock structure, and I really appreciated the comments that those folks made because this was an issue that I wasn't aware of previously. I realize that this is a very new topic. It's something that the Groundfish Plan team is just beginning to hear about, and I appreciate the concerns that were brought forward.

You know, I'm not proposing any action at this time, but I would just encourage stakeholders to engage in the Groundfish Plan team process. And, you know, I know that Pacific cod allocation is very complex, and so I think it's important for them to highlight the implications of any potential new research that's going to have implications on stock structure. I think they need to bring forward potential impacts that that would have on allocation. And so That's all I had, Madam Chair. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Bowers. Mr. Ritchie.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I don't have a motion, but if it's appropriate, I would like to be a little more specific about information that I hope we receive in our standard IPHC report. Um, the Council receives an IPHC report in its February meeting, which is after the IPHC annual meeting where cash limits and regulations are established. My intent is that the Council Executive Director, Ms. Evans, could convey this to the IPHC. For the report, I have 4 asks.

Number 1, I'd like to receive additional information on the differences in total content exploitation yields set at the IPHC annual meetings between 2014 and 2026, spawning stock biomass for the same period, and total biomass estimates over the period. Number 2, I would like available trend information on historic U26 and O26 non-directed commercial discard mortality in regulatory areas 3A and 3B. I'm making this ask in response to public testimony and interest in PSC limits relative to current biomass and stock trends in the Gulf of Alaska. Number 3, I would like information on the increases in unguided recreational mortality in areas 2C and 3A. I hope that any information on harvest estimates and average fish size would be included.

Number 4, I would like information on directed commercial discard mortalities, including any information on how the mortality is calculated and how that method is different from that used by NMFS. Additionally, it would be helpful to receive any recent information on the impacts of changing the commercial size limit on both discards and harvest. Um, I'm making this request to be responsive to what we heard in public testimony, um, and in AP deliberations. That's all I've got. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ritchie. Miss Evans, or Miss Kimball? Okay, I, I just had a question for, for Mr. Ritchie through the chair. Um, if I understand, your request is that we would we get an annual report every year and that you're asking for the IPHC to focus on these particular issues as part of that report. You're not asking them to kind of create new work, but more report back to the extent they have information on those particular topics as part of that presentation to the council.

Is that— do I have a correct understanding of what you're asking for? Yes, Ms. Evans, that's correct. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, anything else?

Any other follow-up? Okay, well, um, appreciate everyone's work during this week, um, and all of the thoughtful public engagement we've had, and of course, um, all of the hard work from our staff and Ms. Evans for your guidance and leadership.

And I also, just quickly, there's some uncertainty coming up in November, and while I'm hopeful that we'll see Ms. Baker at this table, I just want to say that the state of Alaska and our fishermen and communities and this council couldn't could not have asked for a more thoughtful, caring, and brilliant person to be at the helm during some of the most challenging times we've faced in our fisheries. And we've been incredibly fortunate for her guidance and depth of knowledge.

And she cares so much and is the most dedicated public servant I've ever met. So I just wanted to take a moment to thank you, Rachel.

No, um, I just have to make a quick announcement about appointments to the plan team. We've appointed the following persons to our council plan teams: Dr. Lee Cronin-Fine to the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab plan team, soon to be the crab and scallop plan team; Mr. Andrew Olson and Dr. Andrew Wetton to the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands groundfish plan team; and Mr. Aaron Lambert to the Gulf of Alaska groundfish plan team. So I think that's— we'll call it a meeting. So thanks again, everyone, and we'll see you in December. Safe travels.