The Alaska Board of Fisheries 2009/2010 Proposed Changes in the Subsistence, Personal Use, Sport, Guided Sport, and Commercial R

Home , Drift netting, Fishing reel, Ice fishing, Jigging, Powerhead (firearm), Spoon lure

Aln,.~n llt'p~trlrnt.•IH ur f.' ishl and Game PRIORITY MAIL lltt:u:d"i Suppm·l St.•cliuu US POSTAGE PAID P .( ). l lu~ I I ~S2l1 ALASKA DEPT. OF 1 . hwc~m. • 19"' 11 - 5~2(, FISH AND GAME

THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES 2009/2010 PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SUBSISTENCE, PERSONAL USE, SPORT, GUIDED SPORT, AND COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS FOR THE BRISTOL BAY, ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM, AND ALASKA PENINSULA/ALEUTIAN ISLANDS FINFISH; STATEWIDE GENERAL FINFISH PROVISIONS; AND SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY REVIEWER LETTER DEAR REVIEWER: June 2009 The Alaska Board of Fisheries will consider the attached book of regulatory proposals at its October 2009 through March 2010 meetings. The proposals concern changes to the state’s fishing regulations. Members of the public, organizations, advisory committees, and staff timely submitted these proposals. The proposals are published essentially as they were received. The proposals in this book are presented as brief statements summarizing the intended regulatory changes. In cases where confusion might arise or where the regulation is complex, proposed changes are also indicated in legal format. In this format, bolded and underlined words are additions to the regulation text, and capitalized words or letters in square brackets [XXXX] are deletions from the regulation text. You are encouraged to read all proposals presented in this book. Some regulations have statewide application and some regulations may affect other regions or fisheries of the state. Also, some proposals recommend changes to multiple fisheries within an area or region. In this book the proposals are first grouped by the meeting to which they pertain (see PROPOSAL INDEX for each meeting). Within each meeting the proposals are then organized by region, fishery or species. These proposal lists are not in roadmap order for the meeting. The board will generate a roadmap for deliberations prior to each meeting when committee assignments are made. The roadmap may be changed up to and during the meeting. Before taking action on these proposed changes to the regulations, the board would like your written comments and/or oral testimony on any effects the proposed changes would have on your activities. After reviewing the proposals, please send written comments to: ATTN: BOF COMMENTS Boards Support Section Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Fax: 907-465-6094 Public comment, in combination with Advisory Committee comments and ADF&G staff presentations, provide the Board of Fisheries with useful biological and socioeconomic information. You are encouraged to mail or fax your written comments to the above Juneau address at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting. See Tentative Meeting Schedule on Page v for the comment deadline for each meeting. Receipt by this date will ensure inclusion in the board workbook. Comments received after that time will be presented to board members at the time of the meeting, but may not be printed in the board workbook. Written comments, as well as public testimony, will be accepted during the board meetings. Written comments become public documents. When providing written comments regarding these proposals, list the proposal number to which your comment pertains and specifically whether you "support" or "oppose" the proposal. This will ensure that your comments are correctly noted for the board members. If the comments

i support a modification in the proposal, please indicate "support as amended" and provide a preferred amendment in writing. Please briefly explain WHY you are in support or opposition of the proposal. Board actions are based on a complete review of the facts involved in each proposal, not a mere calculation of comments for or against a proposal. Advisory committees and other groups also need to explain the rationale behind recommendations. Minority viewpoints from an advisory committee should be noted in advisory committee minutes along with the majority recommendation. The board benefits greatly from understanding the pro and cons of each issue. A brief description consisting of a couple of sentences is sufficient. If making comments on more than one proposal, please do not use separate pieces of paper. Simply begin the next set of written comments by listing the next proposal number. Written comments will be photocopied so please use 8 1/2" x 11" paper and leave reasonable margins on all sides, allowing for hole punches. Whether typed or handwritten, use dark ink and write legibly. Pertinent policies and findings, proposals, written comment deadlines, meeting calendars and notices for the Board of Fisheries meetings are posted on the Board Support website at http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/ . Agendas for each Board of Fisheries meeting will be available prior to the meeting. Also, the most current roadmap will be provided at the specific meeting, which will set forth the order in which proposals will be considered. Persons with a disability needing special accommodations in order to comment on the proposed regulations should contact the Boards Support Section at (907) 465-4110 no later than two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting to make any necessary arrangements. SPECIAL NOTES: The board applies various statutes and policies when considering fisheries allocations and when addressing salmon proposals: 1) When addressing fishery allocations among sport, guided sport, personal use, and/or commercial fisheries, the board considers the “Allocation Criteria” (AS 16.05.251(e)). 2) When addressing salmon proposals the board may consider the “Mixed Stock Salmon Policy” (5 AAC 39.220). 3) The board may also consider the “Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy” (5 AAC 39.222). You may wish to review these policies as you prepare comments for the board. These policies are accessible on the board's website at the above web address. Also, see Page xxi for information on the board’s procedures for “Restructuring Proposals”.

Jim Marcotte, Executive Director Alaska Board of Fisheries Alaska Department of Fish and Game (907) 465-4110

ii ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES 2009/2010 PROPOSAL BOOK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION SECTION Page Number

Reviewer Letter...... i-ii Table of Contents...... iii-iv Tentative Meeting Schedule ...... v Long-Term Meeting Cycle ...... vi Board of Fisheries Membership Roster ...... vii Boards Support Section Staff List...... viii Draft Public/Legal Notice...... ix-xi Board Procedures on Restructuring Proposals...... xii-xvii Index of Proposals...... xviii-xxvi

PROPOSAL SECTION Page Number

BRISTOL BAY FINFISH Bristol Bay Subsistence ...... 1 Bristol Bay Herring...... 3 Bristol Bay Sport...... 7 Bristol Bay Salmon Fishing Gear Specifications and Operations...... 13 Vessels ...... 15 Permit Stacking...... 16 Registration and Reregistrations...... 31 Bay Wide Management Plans General District...... 35 Naknek River Special Harvest Area Management Plan ...... 38 Alagnak River Special Harvest Area Management Plan ...... 40 Egegik District Management and Allocation Plan...... 41 Nushagak District...... 43 Wood River Special Harvest Area Management Plan...... 44 Fishing Districts, Fishing Periods, Landing Requirements ...... 46

ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM FINFISH AYK Resident Species Sport...... 50 Subsistence...... 67 Kuskokwim Area Salmon Sport...... 68 Commercial...... 69 Kotzebue and Norton Sound Port Clarence Areas Salmon and Herring Subsistence: Kotzebue Area ...... 70

iii Subsistence: Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area...... 71 Norton Sound-Port Clarence Commercial...... 74 Sport...... 79 Yukon Area Salmon Subsistence...... 80 Subsistence and Commercial ...... 86 Commercial...... 93 Sport...... 101

AK PENINSULA/ALEUTIAN ISLANDS FINFISH Groundfish South Alaska Peninsula and Bering Sea – Aleutian Islands...... 103 Salmon June Fishery ...... 113 Post June Fishery ...... 115 Southeast District Mainland...... 124 North Peninsula...... 133 Herring/Salmon Non-gear requirements/ Sport Herring ...... 142 Salmon ...... 143 Sport...... 145

STATEWIDE FINFISH AND SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES Subsistence/Personal Use and Commercial Subsistence...... 147 Personal Use...... 148 Commercial...... 149 Sport Bag Limits...... 156 Emergency Order Authority ...... 159 Method and Means...... 161 Guide services...... 169 Definitions...... 170

iv ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES 2009/2010 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE

Bristol Bay, Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim, and Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Finfish; Statewide General Finfish Provisions; and Supplemental Issues

PROPOSAL DEADLINE: 5:00 p.m. Friday, April 10, 2009

Meeting Comment Dates Topics Location Deadline

October 13-14, 2009 Work Session Anchorage Sept. 29, 2009 [ 2 days ] ACRs 1, cycle organization, Hilton Hotel Stocks of Concern

December 1-8, 2009 Bristol Bay Finfish Anchorage Nov. 17, 2009 [ 8 days ] Hilton Hotel

January 26-31, 2010 Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Fairbanks Jan. 12, 2010 [ 6 days ] Finfish Princess Hotel

February 2-6, 2010 AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Anchorage Jan. 19, 2010 [ 5 days ] Finfish Egan Center

March 16-20, 2010 Statewide Finfish, and Anchorage Mar. 2, 2010 [ 5 days ] Supplemental Issues Hilton Hotel

Total Meeting Days: 26 1Agenda Change Request Deadline: 5:00 p.m., August 28, 2009 (45 days prior to fall work session)

Adopted 10/9/08

v ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES LONG-TERM MEETING CYCLE (Three-year cycle)

The board meeting cycle generally occurs from October through March. The board considers changes to regulations on a region-based schedule. All fisheries are considered when the regional area, shellfish species, or statewide regulations are before the board. The fisheries include subsistence, sport, guided sport, personal use, and commercial. Special petition and agenda change request procedures are available for the board to consider out-of-cycle requests.

NOTES: 1) Statewide shellfish regulations will not be considered every meeting cycle. When setting the future meeting schedule annually, the board will determine whether to consider statewide finfish or shellfish regulations for that meeting cycle. 2) The proposal deadline is April 10 every year. If April 10 falls on a weekend, the proposal deadline is the Friday preceding that weekend.

Meeting Cycle: 2009/2010 2012/2013 2015/2016 2018/2019 Area: Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island Areas (All Finfish) Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Areas (All Finfish) Bristol Bay Area (All Finfish) Statewide Provisions for Finfish

Meeting Cycle: 2010/2011 2013/2014 2016/2017 2019/2020 Area: Cook Inlet Area (All Finfish) Kodiak and Chignik Areas (All Finfish) King and Tanner Crab, Miscellaneous Shellfish (Statewide, except Southeast/Yakutat)

Meeting Cycle: 2011/2012 2014/2015 2017/2018 2020/2021 Area: Prince William Sound Area (All Finfish) Southeast/Yakutat Areas (All Finfish) Southeast/Yakutat Areas (King Crab, Tanner Crab, Dungeness Crab, Shrimp; and Miscellaneous Shellfish) Statewide Miscellaneous Shellfish and Provisions

THE MEETING CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF EVERY THREE YEARS. This schedule was adopted November 9, 1990, updated October 13, 2006.

vi ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES (as of July 1, 2009)

NAME AND ADDRESS TERM EXPIRES

Vince Webster (Vice Chair) 6/30/2010 PO Box 121 King Salmon, AK 99613

Howard Delo 6/30/2010 PO Box 520707 Big Lake, AK 99652

Mel Morris 6/30/2011 917 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615

John Jensen (Chair) 6/30/2011 PO Box 681 Petersburg, AK 99833

Bill Brown 6/30/2011 9150 Skywood Drive Juneau, AK 99801

Karl Johnstone 6/30/2012 18618 Snowy Plover Circle Anchorage, AK 99516

Vacant 6/30/2012

*************************************************************************************************** Alaska Board of Fisheries members may be reached at: Boards Support Section Alaska Department of Fish and Game PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: (907) 465-4110 Fax: (907) 465-6094 www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us

vii BOARDS SUPPORT SECTION STAFF LIST

Boards Support Section Alaska Department of Fish and Game PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Physical location: 1255 West 8th Street, Juneau Phone: (907) 465-4110 Fax: (907) 465-6094

HEADQUARTERS Board of Fisheries Board of Game Jim Marcotte, Exec. Director II, 465-6095 Kristy Tibbles, Exec. Director I, 465-6098 Shannon Stone, Pub. Specialist II, 465-6097 Scott Crass, Pub. Specialist II, 465-4046

Mini Cherian, Administrative Officer I, 465-6096 Brendon Fuhs, Administrative Assistant I, 465-4110 Dani Cherian, College Intern III, 465-6084 LeAn Wortman, College Intern II, 465-6084

REGIONAL OFFICES Arctic Region Interior Region Susan Bucknell Vacant PO Box 689 1300 College Road Kotzebue, AK 99752 Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 Phone: 442-1717 Phone: 459-7263 Fax: 442-2847 Fax: 459-7258

Southwest Region Southeast Region (north of Frederick Sound) Vacant Scott Crass PO Box 1030 PO Box 115526 Dillingham, AK 99576 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: 842-5142 Phone: 465-4046 Fax: 842-5514 Fax: 465-6094

Southcentral Region Southeast Region (south of Frederick Sound) Sherry Wright Shannon Stone 333 Raspberry Road PO Box 115526 Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: 267-2354 Phone: 465-6097 Fax: 267-2489 Fax: 465-6094

------Website address: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/

viii DRAFT

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES

The Alaska Board of Fisheries proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations contained in Title 5 of the Alaska Administrative Code, dealing with fishery and aquatic plant resources in the areas designated below, including the following:

IN THE BRISTOL BAY AREA; IN THE KOTZEBUE, NORTON SOUND-PORT CLARENCE, YUKON-NORTHERN, and KUSKOKWIM FINFISH AREAS (collectively referred to as Arctic- Yukon-Kuskokwim or A-Y-K Areas), IN THE ALASKA PENINSULA-ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, CHIGNIK, BRISTOL BAY, KUSKOKWIM, AND BERING SEA-KOTZEBUE HERRING FISHERY AREAS; and STATEWIDE (GENERAL PROVISIONS) FINFISH REGULATIONS.

A. In the commercial, sport, guided sport, and guided sport ecotourism fisheries: fishing seasons, periods, opening and closing times; bag, possession, size, sex, and harvest limits, harvest levels, thresholds or quotas; bycatch provisions; districts, subdistricts, sections, subsections, areas, and other management boundaries; locations open and closed to fishing; methods and means; gear and vessel restrictions, marking, definitions, operational requirements and limitations, registration and permit requirements; registration areas (including exclusive and super exclusive registration areas), permits, harvest record, harvest marking requirements; management plans for conservation, development and allocation among beneficial uses; guiding principles; require, restrict or prohibit the retention, tendering, sale, release, or purchase of fish; methods of release; registration and reporting requirements for fish guides, guided anglers, catchers, processors, buyers and transporters; onboard observer requirements; fish storage and inspection requirements.

B. In the subsistence, and personal use fisheries (finfish): identify subsistence uses and users; fishing seasons, periods, opening and closing times, harvest levels; methods and means; size, age, and sex limitations; districts, subdistricts, sections, subsections, areas, and other management boundaries; locations open and closed to fishing; gear and vessel restrictions and operational requirements; harvest limits, registration and permit requirements, requirements for marking and possession of fish; management plans for conservation, development and allocation among beneficial uses, and users; identify customary and traditional uses of fish stocks, determine amounts reasonably necessary for subsistence uses, and establish, change or adjust subsistence and personal use fisheries.

For a copy of the proposed regulation changes contact the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526, tel. (907) 465-4110 or go to the internet at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/

You may comment on the regulation changes, including the potential costs to the private persons of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments limited to no more than 100 single sided or 50 double sided pages to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526, or by fax to (907) 465-6094, so that the comments will be received no later than two weeks prior to the meeting during which the topic will be considered. Unless otherwise specifically specified for a particular meeting in a published

ix notice, written comment over 100 single sided or 50 double sided pages in length from any one individual or group relating to proposals at any one meeting will not be accepted. Written comments limited to 10 single sided or 5 double sided pages in length from any one individual or group will also be accepted after the two-week deadline, but will not be inserted in board member workbooks until the beginning of the meeting. During the meeting written comments limited to 10 single sided or 5 double sided pages in length from any one individual or group may be submitted by hand delivery at any time if 20 copies are provided; but, as a practical matter comments submitted after the board begins deliberations on relevant proposals are likely to receive less consideration than comments submitted earlier. Oral comments may also be presented as explained below.

There will be one nonregulatory work session and four separate regulatory meetings. Each meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. on the dates noted below. The public hearing portions for each regulatory meeting will begin immediately after staff reports and continue until everyone who has signed up and is present has been given the opportunity to be heard. Additional public hearings with Board Committees may be held throughout the meeting before consideration and adoption of proposed changes in the regulations for the various areas. An agenda will be posted daily during the meeting. The board will take oral testimony only from those who register before the cut-off time announced by the board chair at each regulatory meeting. The length of oral statements may be limited to five minutes or less. Anyone interested in, or affected by, the subject matter contained in this legal notice should make written or oral comments if they wish to have their views considered by the board.

TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE

Work Session: agenda change requests, cycle organization, stocks of concern October 13, 2009 Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK

Bristol Bay Finfish December 1, 2009 Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK

Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Finfish January 26, 2010 Princess Hotel, 4477 Pikes Landing Road, Fairbanks, AK

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutians Islands Finfish February 2, 2010 Egan Center, 555 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, AK

Statewide Finfish and Supplementary Items March 16, 2010 Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK

Any changes to meeting locations, dates or times, or rescheduling of topics or subject matter will be announced by news release. Please watch for these announcements in the news media or call

x (907) 465-4110. Please carefully review the PROPOSAL INDEX available for the meeting for specific proposal issues to be addressed by the board. Copies of the proposal indices are in the proposal book or at the relevant meeting.

Anyone interested in or affected by subsistence, personal use, commercial fishing, sport, guided sport, or guided sport ecotourism regulations is hereby informed that, by publishing this legal notice, the Board of Fisheries may consider any or all of the subject areas covered by this notice. Pursuant to AS 44.62.200(b), the board may review the full range of activities appropriate to any of the subjects listed in this notice. The board may make changes to the personal use, sport, guided sport or commercial fishing regulations as may be required to ensure the subsistence priority in AS 16.05.258. On its own motion, after public hearing, the board may adopt, amend, reject, supplement, or take no action on these subjects without further notice. In addition, the board may adopt other regulations necessary to implement, administer, or enforce the regulations adopted. THE BOARD IS NOT LIMITED BY THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR CONFINES OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OR STAFF. The language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. YOU SHOULD COMMENT DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOUR INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED.

If you are a person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to participate in the process on the proposed regulations, please contact Jim Marcotte at (907) 465-4110 no later than two weeks prior to the beginning of each meeting to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided.

Statutory Authority: AS 16.05 - AS 16.20, AS 16.40 Statutes being implemented, interpreted, or made specific: AS 16.05 - AS 16.020, AS 16.40 Fiscal Information: The proposed regulatory actions are not expected to require an increased appropriation.

Date: ______Jim Marcotte, Executive Director Alaska Board of Fisheries

xi ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT BOARD PROCEDURES ON SALMON INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING PROPOSALS

The following nine proposals for the 2009-2010 cycle have been identified as possible salmon industry restructuring proposals.

Bristol Bay Finfish Proposal 15 Repeal 32-foot vessel length limit for Bristol Bay fishery. Proposal 16 Allow multiple permit use. Proposal 17 Allow multiple permit use. Proposal 18 Allow multiple permit use. Proposal 19 Allow multiple permit use. Proposal 20 Allow one person to own two permits and use 200 fathoms nets.

A-Y-K Finfish Proposal 76 Allow purse seines to harvest pink salmon in Norton Sound. Proposal 77 Allow purse and beach seines in Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area.

Statewide Finfish Proposal 168 Repeal the length limit on salmon seine vessels in Alaska.

A restructuring proposal is one that is likely to have substantial economic, social, or biological impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased opportunities to: 1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved quality); 2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or 3) improve conservation.

The board is seeking additional information on these proposals in order that they can be fully evaluated. During the October 13-14, 2009 worksession, the board will: a) determine if the proposal complete; b) determine if there are outstanding questions or information needed; c) confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal where board may need additional authority to make decisions; d) identify whether CFEC, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor or other agencies need to be consulted on issues raised by the proposal and if so, bring staff together to schedule work and process; and e) identify proposal’s review process and schedule.

The additional information requested in order to fully evaluate these proposals can be found in the 11 questions contained in the board’s Restructuring Proposal Form (see Page xv). The board invites the proposal authors and the public to submit any additional information to help in the evaluation of these proposals.

Background on Board of Fisheries Restructuring Proposals In 2004 the Board of Fisheries established a Commercial Salmon Industry Restructuring Workgroup consisting of various stakeholders and interests from the fishing industry to examine

xii policy and other options for the Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Legislature to properly consider restructuring in Alaska’s salmon fisheries. This board workgroup was undertaken after a cooperative agreement between the board and the legislature as a continuation of the work from the Legislature’s Salmon Industry Task Force. In 2006, the board received a report from the stakeholder panel and the board forwarded the report to the legislature. (Report available at http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/sirp/meetinfo/panelfinalrep06.pdf or by writing to the Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811- 5526 or by calling 907-465-4110.)

Much of the work from the stakeholder workgroup centered around the Board of Fisheries process and how the board should receive and consider proposals which may be considered a “restructuring proposal”. The workgroup developed a suggested format for how restructuring proposals should be submitted to the board, along with criteria for how the board should review these proposals. The board decided to informally follow these recommendations for a “trial period”, during which the board will annually review the process for modification or, ultimately, consider adopting it as a board policy.

Proposals which seek to significantly change how salmon fisheries operate should be reviewed with extra scrutiny and an examination of the possible benefits and impacts to the stakeholders, communities, regions and the state as a whole.

Board of Fisheries Criteria for Review of Restructuring Proposals Keeping in mind that all proposals must promote the sustainability of fishery resources and be consistent with other Board of Fisheries policies, the Board of Fisheries may consider comprehensive regulatory restructuring proposals, and when doing so may, in addition to other factors, use the following criteria: 1) Promote an increased net economic benefit to the participants remaining in the fishery following restructuring: 2) Identify possible interactions within and between regions; 3) Identify potential mitigation measures for those dependent on the fishery that may be negatively impacted; 4) Promote improvements in a fishery’s value, product quality, or an increase in efficiency; 5) Adequately address biological impacts to the resource caused by changes in management systems and utilization of the resource; 6) Promote a healthy fishing economy in Alaska that provides social and economic benefit to communities dependent upon the fishery and contributes to the overall benefit of the resource and the economy of the state; and 7) In addition to the criteria above, other factors may be considered as appropriate.

Process to Review Restructuring Proposals Restructuring proposals may have substantial economic, social, and/or biological impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. Accordingly, the Board of Fisheries is interested in ensuring ample opportunity for review and comment by potentially affected regions and fishery participants. The board identified the following steps for addressing restructuring proposals: 1) Submit proposal as part of regular review cycle for a given area. (Applicant)

xiii 2) Determine if proposal is a restructuring proposal. (Board) 3) Publish restructuring proposals in a separate section of the board proposal book or otherwise identify proposal as a restructuring proposal. (Department) 4) Hold a publicly-noticed worksession to determine: (Board) a.) Is proposal complete? b.) Are there outstanding questions or information needed? c.) Confirm that board has authority to act on proposal; identify any aspects of proposal where board may need additional authority to make decisions. d.) Identify whether CFEC or other agencies need to be consulted on issues raised by the proposal. If so, bring staff together to schedule work and process. e.) Identify proposal’s review process and schedule. 5) Hold information-gathering public hearing within region if needed. (Board) 6) Hold other hearings/work sessions as needed. (Board) 7) Board of Fisheries decision. (Board)

xiv Alaska Board of Fisheries - Restructuring Proposal Form Please answer the questions below as completely as possible. Your response will likely require multiple pages and considerable time and effort. Some questions may not be applicable to your proposal. Some questions may be quite difficult to answer; incomplete answers will not necessarily disqualify your proposal. Please carefully read the instructions on second page before answering the questions.

1) What regulatory area, fishery, and gear type does this restructuring proposal affect?

2) Please thoroughly explain your proposal. (See Part II, Question 2 of the instructions on second page for important guidance on how to answer this question).

3) What are the objectives of the proposal?

4) How will this proposal meet the objectives in Question 3?

5) Please identify the potential allocative impacts of your proposal. Is there an allocation or management plan that will be affected by this proposal?

6) If the total value of the resource is expected to increase, who will benefit?

7) What will happen if your fishery is not restructured as your proposal recommends, and how is this proposal an improvement over current practices?

8) Considering the history of the commercial fishery, what are the potential short- and long- term positive and negative impacts on: a) the fishery resource; b) harvesters; c) the sector, species, and regional interdependence relationships; d) safety; e) the market; f) processors; and g) local communities.

9) What is your understanding of the level of support for your proposal among the harvesters, processors, and local communities?

10) What are the potential short and long-term impacts on conservation and resource habitat?

11) What are the potential legal, fishery management, and enforcement implications if this proposal is adopted? What other governmental actions may need to be taken into account?

Submitted By: Name ______(signature required) Individual or Group ______Address ______(Zip Code) ______Phone ______

xv Instructions for Restructuring Proposal Form

Please answer the questions below as completely as possible. Your response will likely require multiple pages and considerable time and effort. Some questions may not be applicable to your proposal. Some questions may be quite difficult to answer and incomplete answers will not necessarily disqualify your proposal.

Part I: How to determine if your proposal is a “restructuring” proposal A ”restructuring proposal” is a proposal that is likely to have substantial economic, social, and/or biological impacts and may require significant changes to the management of a fishery. The proposed regulatory change may strive to improve the value of a fishery by providing new and increased opportunities to: (1) raise the revenue generated from harvested fish (e.g. through improved quality); or (2) lower the cost of fishing operations; or (3) improve conservation. Such proposals may include (but are not limited to): consolidation of fishing effort or a shift in who harvests the fish, changes in harvest methods used, or allocations of quotas.

Please note that if the board does not have the legal authority to implement the proposed regulation then your proposal may be dismissed or tabled. If your proposal is found to be incomplete, the board may direct you to potential resources or specific agencies you may need to work with. If your proposal is determined to be a restructuring proposal, the board may put the proposal on a special timeline for action to allow for appropriate public input. If the proposal is determined to be incomplete or otherwise needs further development prior to action, the board, at its discretion, may table the proposal for future action. The board may, at its discretion, amend any proposal and move it forward.

Restructuring proposals may have broad ramifications with both positive and/or negative impacts to harvesters, processors, coastal communities, associated businesses and the State of Alaska. Therefore, your proposal should consider the potential impacts of the proposed new regulation on all stakeholders.

Part II: How to Fill out the Restructuring Proposal Form Question #1: For which fishery management areas and gear type will the regulations be changed? For which specific fisheries?

Question #2: To completely explain your proposal, address the questions below: a. Will this proposal require initial harvester qualification for eligibility? If so, how would it work? b. Are there new harvesting allocations? If so, how are they determined? c. What means, methods, and permitted fishing gear are proposed? d. Is a change in vessel length proposed? e. Are the transferability of permits or harvest privileges affected? If so, explain. f. Is there a defined role for processors? If so, please describe. g. Will this proposal be a permanent change to regulation? If not, for how long? h. If adopted, will your proposal require a change in monitoring and oversight by ADF&G? i. Will vertical integration (e.g. harvesting and/or processing) or consolidation occur? Will limits be imposed? j. How do you propose to monitor and evaluate the restructured fishery? k. Is there a conservation motivation behind the proposal? If so, please explain. l. What practical challenges need to be overcome to implementing your proposal, and how do you propose overcoming them?

Question #3: Restructuring proposals may have many goals that may not be apparent from the proposal itself. What specific changes to you want to occur if this proposal is put into regulation?

xvi Question #4: How and why will your proposed regulation meet the goals and objectives in question #3?

Question #5: A restructuring proposal will often have allocative or reallocative impacts. Please identify those potential impacts. Other than already identified in question #1, what management plans and allocation regulations might be affected? Note that this could include fisheries distant from the fishery being regulated.

Question #6: Who will benefit? Harvesters? Processors? Communities? State? Subsistence users? Etc.

Question #7: How is your proposal better than status quo?

Question #8: Restructuring proposals will have positive and/or negative impacts to harvesters, processors, coastal communities, associated businesses and the State of Alaska. Your proposal is more likely to be judged complete if you try to identify both the positive and negative impacts of your proposal on: a) The fishery resource: 1) biological; 2) management system; and 3) economic utilization. b) Harvesters: 1) economic efficiency of the harvesting function; 2) species interdependence impacts; 3) harvesting asset ownership impacts; 4) distribution of product value; and 5) market access. c) Interdependence: How will your proposal impact other gear types and fisheries targeting other species? How will it affect interactions between regions and within the communities of the region? d) Safety: How does your proposal affect safety, if at all? e) The market: 1) market access and product form; 2) market timing; 3) competitive opportunities; 4) other, if any. f) Processors: 1) economic efficiency of the processing function; 2) species interdependence impacts; 3) processing asset ownership impacts; 4) distribution of product value; and 5) market access. g) Local communities: 1) employment enhancement, displacement, and loss; 2) municipal revenue impacts; 3) industry infrastructure impacts; 4) species interdependence impacts; 5) ownership of local harvesting and processing impacts; and 6) gain or loss of associated businesses.

Question #9: Is this a “one-person idea” or does your proposal have broad support?

Question #10: Conservation and development of fisheries resources are major goals of the board and any impacts on these goals, positive or negative, are of high importance. Please explain the likely impacts of your proposal.

Question #11: Restructuring proposals often have legal, fishery management, and enforcement implications that the board will have to address before it can take action. Please identify the potential issues in these areas.

xvii ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES December 1-8, 2009

BRISTOL BAY FINFISH

PROPOSAL INDEX Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.

SUBSISTENCE 1 Allow subsistence drift gillnets in Nushagak, Igushik, Snake, and Wood Rivers 2 Allow subsistence drift gillnets in Nushagak River, June 1–September 30 3 Allow 25 fathoms of set gillnet in the Wood and Nushagak Rivers

HERRING 4 Change herring allocation for gillnet and seine 5 Eliminate reallocation of spawn on kelp quota 6 Allocate unharvested spawn on kelp quota to food and bait 7 Define Egg Island subsection

SPORT 8 Prohibit fishing below the bridge on Brooks River 9 Close sport fishing within quarter mile of Klutak, Iowithla, and Koggiling creeks 10 Revise regulations regarding Alagnak River closure 11 Correct regulatory error regarding sport fishing for king salmon in Big Creek Drainage 12 Correct regulatory error regarding bag and possession limits for king salmon in Bristol Bay Area 13 Establish a fish refuge in Bristol Bay

SALMON Fishing Gear Specifications and Operations 14 Require removal of all setnet gear during drift gillnet openings

Vessels 15 Eliminate 32 foot limit on vessels in Bristol Bay drift gillnet fishery

Permit Stacking 16 Allow multiple permit use 17 Allow multiple permit use 18 Allow multiple permit use 19 Allow multiple permit use 20 Allow one person to own two permits and use 200 fathom nets 21 Allow use of 300 fathoms of gear with two stacked permits 22 Limit gear to 150 fathoms when NRSHA Management Plan is in effect 23 Eliminate use of 200 fathom drift gillnets in Togiak District 24 Eliminate permit stacking

xviii

Registration and Reregistration 25 Once registered, permit holder must remain there until escapement goal is met 26 Eliminate super exclusive status of Togiak District 27 Eliminate 48-hour transfer for gear type in the same district 28 Eliminate 48-hour transfer for gear type in the same SHA 29 Allow Area T permit in Alaska Peninsula Area, January 1 – December 31 30 Allow Area T permit in Alaska Peninsula Area, January 1 – December 31

BAY-WIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS General District 31 Allow fishing in General District

Naknek River Special Harvest Area Management Plan 32 Allow 35 fathom set gillnet in NRSHA 33 Require removal of all setnet gear during drift gillnet periods in NRSHA 34 Change NRSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet

Alagnak River Special Harvest Area Management Plan 35 Change ARSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet 36 Change ARSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet

Egegik District Management and Allocation Plan 37 Allow concurrent openings for drift and set gillnet with offset start times 38 Suspend allocation when fleet is less than 400 vessels or under limits 39 Require removal of all set gillnet gear when closed to fishing

Nushagak District 40 Delete sunset clause for the dude fishing regulation 41 Extend fishing season for dude fishery

Wood River Special Harvest Area Management Plan 42 Open WRSHA when Wood River escapement is projected over 700,000 43 Allow June drift periods in WRSHA if escapement is over 100,000

Fishing Districts, Fishing Periods, Landing Requirements 44 Modify southern boundary of Naknek-Kvichak District 45 Modify Snake River Section boundary 46 Modify fishing periods for Kulukak Section 47 Change landing requirements in Nushagak District 48 Modify fishing periods in the Ugashik District

xix ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES January 26-31, 2010

ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM FINFISH

PROPOSAL INDEX Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.

AYK RESIDENT SPECIES Sport 49 Update the Tanana River Management Area stocked waters list 50 Align Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plans with area regulations 51 Align Tanana River regulations with the Wild Arctic Grayling Plan 52 Clarify regulations for Chena Slough (Badger Slough) 53 Clarify single-hook regulations in the Tanana River drainage 54 Open the Nome River to catch-and-release fishing for Arctic grayling 55 Align sport fish boundaries with commercial/subsistence boundaries 56 Move sport fishing regulatory boundary in the Chatanika River 57 Amend whitefish sport bag limits in the Chatanika River 58 Amend bait restrictions in Fielding Lake 59 Allow for only one closely attended line in Fielding Lake 60 Allow a single hook with trailer hook in Harding Lake 61 Increase the northern pike bag limit in Volkmar Lake 62 Amend open season for northern pike in Volkmar Lake 63 Align areas in the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plans

Subsistence 64 Establish subsistence daily household limit for winter pike fishery 65 Require single hooks for summer sport and winter subsistence pike fishery

KUSKOKWIM AREA SALMON Sport 66 Allow retention of chum salmon in Aniak River sport fishery

Commercial 67 Change maximum mesh size from 8 inch to 6 inch in Kuskokwim River

KOTZEBUE AND NORTON SOUND-PORT CLARENCE AREAS SALMON AND HERRING Subsistence: Kotzebue Area 68 Expand hook and line use for subsistence from Wales to Point Hope

Subsistence: Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area 69 Expand hook and line use for subsistence in Norton Sound 70 Allow snagging for non-salmon species in Nome and Port Clarence

xx 71 Allow seining for salmon in Nome Subdistrict 72 Review Unalakleet king salmon management plan and modify mesh size

Norton Sound-Port Clarence Commercial 73 Change opening date for Port Clarence District sockeye fishery 74 Expand boundaries of Norton Sound Subdistrict 3 75 Expand use of drift gillnets to Port Clarence District 76 Allow purse seines to harvest pink salmon in Norton Sound 77 Allow purse and beach seines in Norton Sound-Port Clarence 78 Allow closed pounding for herring spawn-on-kelp in Norton Sound 79 Allow closed pounding for herring in Norton Sound and Port Clarence

Sport 80 Amend sport fishing bag limits for chum salmon in Norton Sound

YUKON AREA SALMON Subsistence 81 Clarify subsistence fishing schedule in Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C 82 Modify subsistence fishing schedule in Subdistrict 4-A 83 Require recording subsistence harvest on catch calendars 84 Extend Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C drift gillnet area for king salmon 85 Extend Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C drift gillnet area for kings and fall chum 86 Allow set gillnets to be tied up during closures in Subdistrict 5-D

Subsistence and Commercial 87 Review triggers, GHR, fishing schedule in king salmon management plan 88 Prohibit drift gillnet gear for subsistence and commercial fishing 89 Restrict depth of subsistence and commercial 6 inch mesh to 35 meshes 90 Prohibit subsistence and commercial gillnets over 6 inch mesh size

Commercial 91 Limit commercial king harvest during chum directed fisheries 92 Prohibit sale of kings during non-king directed fisheries 93 Prohibit retention of kings during chum directed main stem fisheries 94 Require windows schedule during lower river commercial fishery 95 Reallocate commercial king salmon harvest 96 Reallocate commercial summer chum salmon harvest 97 Reallocate commercial fall chum salmon harvest 98 Open commercial fishing between Black River and Chris Point 99 Open Andreafsky River to commercial fishing

Sport 100 Close the Tok River drainage to sport fishing for salmon

xxi ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES February 2-6, 2010

ALASKA PENINSULA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS FINFISH

PROPOSAL INDEX Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.

GROUNDFISH South Alaska Peninsula and Bering Sea- Aleutian Islands 101 Clarify groundfish management area descriptions 102 Repeal fishing season regulations that allow groundfish to be taken at any time 103 Limit vessel size to 58 feet in the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery 104 Limit vessel size to 58 feet in the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery 105 Exclude longline gear from the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery 106 Implement a 60 pot or 5 jig machine limit in the parallel Pacific cod fishery in the Western Gulf of Alaska 107 Modify allowable gear and vessel size for the parallel Pacific cod fishery in the South Alaska Peninsula Area 108 Increase the guideline harvest level in the South Alaska Peninsula Area state-waters Pacific cod management plan 109 Increase the guideline harvest level in the South Alaska Peninsula Area state-waters Pacific cod management plan 110 Implement a 7-day stand down period 111 Close the waters of Unalaska Bay to groundfish fishing with trawl gear 112 Modify groundfish pot storage requirements 113 Specify that pot gear may be fished on a longline 114 Allow pot vessels 100 feet or less to participate in the B season

SALMON June Fishery 115 Require participation in a chum pool 116 Reinstate the 8.3 percent allocation of the pre-season Bristol Bay sockeye salmon forecast 117 Modify the depth of drift and set gillnet gear

Post June Fishery 118 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule 119 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule 120 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule 121 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule 122 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule 123 Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule

xxii 124 Address current commercial salmon fishing opportunity 125 Allow commercial salmon fishing in all terminal areas 126 Extend the existing terminal areas 127 Repeal the immature salmon test fishery or increase the threshold 128 Allow the seine fishery based on a ratio of the number of immature salmon caught 129 Extend the commercial salmon fishing season 130 Modify the depth of drift and set gillnet gear 131 Allow for the use of gillnets with mesh size less than five and one-quarter inches

Southeast District Mainland 132 Allow harvest opportunity in the SEDM 133 Establish a schedule in the SEDM of 72-hour fishing periods 134 Modify the percentage of sockeye salmon caught in the SEDM 135 Modify the SEDM allocation criteria 136 Modify the level of sockeye salmon harvest ensured to the Chignik Management Area 137 Modify the allocation to allow incremental fishing time in the SEDM 138 Allow concurrent fishing periods in the SEDM and Chignik areas 139 Modify the description of closed waters in Grub Gulch 140 Repeal the closed waters near the Kupreanof Point 141 Open Kupreanof Area to fishing for both Area M and Chignik fishermen on alternating schedules 142 Open the waters of Dorenoi Bay to commercial salmon fishing from June 1 through July 25 143 Open the waters of Dorenoi Bay to commercial salmon fishing before July 25 144 Modify the description of all closed waters in Stepovak Bay

North Peninsula 145 Amend the weekly opening and closing times in the Inner Port Heiden and Ilnik sections 146 Amend the weekly opening and closing times in the Cinder River Section 147 Restrict openings in the Northern District unless local escapement goals are met 148 Institute windows in the Northern District 149 Modify the management of the Ilnik Section 150 Close the Outer Port Heiden Section to gillnet fishing from June 20 to July 15 151 Close the Outer Port Heiden Section 152 Modify the Northern District Fisheries Management Plan 153 Allow purse seine gear inside Ilnik Lagoon 154 Change the gear mesh depth to 45 meshes in the Northern District 155 Allow set gillnet gear in the Outer Port Heiden Section 156 Change seaward gillnet distance in the Cinder River, Port Heiden, and Ilnik sections 157 Change the angle of the boundary line in the Outer Port Heiden Section

HERRING/SALMON GEAR REQUIREMENTS/SPORT Herring 158 Change the Dutch Harbor food and bait herring set gillnet allocation 159 Allow seine gear in the Adak herring fishery

xxiii Salmon 160 Modify the length of seine webbing used as a lead for set gillnet gear from 10 fathoms to 50 fathoms 161 Modify the length of seine webbing used as a lead for set gillnet gear from 10 fathoms to 50 fathoms 162 Modify the length of seine webbing used as a lead for set gillnet gear from 10 fathoms to 25 fathoms

Sport 163 Simplify bag and possession limits for king salmon in Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Area

xxiv ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES March 16 – 20, 2010

STATEWIDE FINFISH, AND SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES

PROPOSAL INDEX Following is a list of proposals that will be considered at the above meeting sorted by general topic. A board committee roadmap will be developed and distributed prior to the meeting.

SUBSISTENCE/PERSONAL USE AND COMMERCIAL Subsistence 164 Revise unlawful possession of subsistence finfish

Personal Use 165 Delay opening personal use fishery until escapement goal is met 166 Eliminate requirement of having a sport fishing license to fish in personal use fisheries

Commercial 167 Modify definition of mechanical jigging machine 168 Repeal length limit on salmon seine vessels in Alaska 169 Amend criteria for the allocation of fishery resources 170 Clarify regulations establishing escapement goals 171 Clarify escapement goals and establish ranges 172 Provide definition for escapement goal threshold 173 Amend management plan for parallel groundfish fisheries 174 Amend lawful gear for groundfish

SPORT Bag Limits 175 Establish bag limit for sablefish 176 Increase bag limit for spiny dogfish 177 Establish bag limit for thornyhead rockfish

Emergency Order Authority 178 Clarify emergency order authority 179 Clarify emergency order authority

Method and Means 180 Define electric fishing reels 181 Clarify definition of fishing rod and electric reel 182 Prohibit use of electric reels 183 Prohibit use of electric reels 184 Prohibit use of felt sole wading boots 185 Clarify definition of underwater spear 186 Allow the use of underwater spear 187 Allow the use of bait by disabled anglers

xxv 188 Modify sport fishing regulations for halibut

Guide services 189 Require a client-guide agreement for each client on a sport fishing charter trip 190 Allow crew members to retain fish when clients are onboard

Definitions 191 Define official time for sport fisheries 192 Establish a definition of artificial fly

xxvi

BRISTOL BAY FINFISH PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL 1 - 5 AAC 01.320. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Allow subsistence drift gillnets in Nushagak, Igushik, Snake, and Wood Rivers as follows:

Subsistence drift fishing for salmon is allowed in the Nushagak, Igushik, Snake and Wood River drainages. Drift nets will not exceed 25 fathoms in length and 29 meshes deep, vessel length not to exceed 24 feet.

ISSUE: Shortage of accessible subsistence set net fishing area along the Lower Wood River, Kanakanak and Dillingham beaches by those who want to harvest subsistence King Salmon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Every year subsistence fishermen are faced with the difficulty of finding accessible fishing sites because available beaches are claimed on a fist- come first-served basis. Some families use “traditional” sites every year and those who do not “stake their claim early” for a fishing spot are left out. Those who have boats can travel farther away to conduct their subsistence fishing activity, but having to check their nets every tide can be very dangerous at times whenever the weather is bad. If they are unable to check their nets each tide’ destruction by birds, spoilage, and waste sometimes result.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Fishermen will have a higher degree of control in harvesting quality and quality of fish. Families only catch what they need and are able to process daily for their own personal use. They will be able to control how many fish they catch instead of what they end up with once their set nets go dry. Given these tools, subsistence fishermen will be able to catch what they need, process what they catch, and will make better use of their time in meeting their annual needs. Fishermen will be safer off too as they will not be forced to travel to their remote fishing areas in the event of bad weather.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone, especially those subsistence fishermen who choose to fish on the beach. If drift fishing were allowed, this would reduce congestion and competition on the beaches for fishing sites.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 1) Allowing set nets to be closer together but then the potential of gear conflict and crowding rises. 2) Limiting vessel length to 24 feet addresses concerns by eliminating the larger commercial fishing vessels.

PROPOSED BY: Hans Nicholson (SW-09F-003) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 2 - 5 AAC 01.310. Fishing seasons and periods. Allow subsistence drift gillnets in Nushagak River, June 1–September 30 as follows:

- 1 -

Subsistence drift gill netting for salmon will be permitted on the Nushagak River system below Harris Creek and on the lower Nuyukuk below Arrow Creek. From June1 – September 30 Using king or red salmon net 25 fathoms in length or less. Skiff length to equal 25 feet or less.

ISSUE: Subsistence Drift Gill Netting is a salmon harvesting tradition that has been used on the Nushagak River by the local village residents for many years. This proposal would address the issue and allow for the legalization of Subsistence Drift Gill Netting and ensure better documentation of salmon taken by local subsistence users.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The issue will not be addressed.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Salmon will be fresher and there will be less waste of the resource and better documentation.

The two traditional subsistence methods are the Set Net method where the net is attached to a point on the river bank and the Subsistence Drift Gill Netting method.

With the set net method, the nets are usually anchored at the points of a slough or jog in the Nushagak River bank. These places are also natural fishing areas for brown bears which are becoming a serious problem to the village subsistence fisherman, because the bears on a daily basis, pull up and destroy the nets, along with the many salmon in them. This problem increases each year as the bear population increases. River Otter are also a problem, especially during the King Salmon season. They eat parts of each fish in the net and the remainder is ruined for salmon strips.

This bear and otter predation forces the village subsistence fisherman to check the subsistence set net two or more times each day in an attempt to get a better quality fish, but nets are still pulled and ruined, with fish half eaten. As a result more salmon need to be caught to fill the subsistence smokehouse and the salmon, ruined by bear and otter, are usually not even documented on the ADF&G Subsistence Salmon Fishing Permit Form.

Therefore many local village subsistence fishermen are returning to the other traditional fishing method of Subsistence Drift Gill Netting on the Nushagak River System will solve these problems and result in less of the salmon resource being ruined or destroyed by predators and more accurate subsistence salmon documentation by local fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local village subsistence fishermen will benefit because they will be able to harvest good fresh salmon with less waste due to predators. With less waste of the salmon resource, more salmon will be able to spawn or be fished for sport. ADF&G will benefit from a more accurate salmon count data on the ADF&G Subsistence Salmon Fishing Permit Form.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one! Except, the brown bears and otters will have to return to their natural way of catching salmon.

- 2 -

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Nushagak AC (SW-09F-011) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 3 - 5 AAC 01.320. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Allow 25 fathoms of set gillnet in the Wood and Nushagak Rivers as follows:

Allow 25 fathoms of subsistence set nets to be used in the Wood River and Nushagak River upstream from the confluence of the Wood and Nushagak Rivers.

ISSUE: The issue of using only 10 fathoms of gear to subsistence fish in the Wood River and downriver from Lewis Point on the Nushagak River. This area used to fish 25 fathom nets but a couple board cycles ago was reduced to 10 fathoms. Consequently, fishermen have to fish longer with the shorter nets and have to go out on multiple trips to meet their annual needs. Having to check nets multiple times each day is costly with the high cost of gasoline. Safety also is an issue whenever the wind is blowing and the weather is bad. Having to go across the river by boat is dangerous enough when it is calm and is exacerbated when rough. Allowing fishermen to fish with longer nets will allow them to get their fish in a shorter time thereby reducing the number of trips that they have to make.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Subsistence fishermen will continue to be forced to fish more days and longer to catch adequate numbers for fish for their annual needs. Fishermen will continue to jeopardize their lives whenever they travel by boat to access their fishing sites.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Subsistence fishermen will be able to harvest their fish quicker without having to fish longer and harvest enough salmon to process before the Blue-fly season to avoid maggot spoilage to drying fish.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All subsistence fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 1. Fishing longer nets on accessible beaches near town but there is not enough available space for everyone. 2. Allowing subsistence drifting would help because it has the potential of freeing up available beaches. It would also enable fishermen to control harvest and increase quality. I chose to write a separate proposal.

PROPOSED BY: Hans Nicholson (SW-09F-004) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 4 - 5 AAC 27.831. Gillnet specifications and operations for Bristol Bay Area. Change herring allocation for gillnet and seine as follows:

- 3 -

5 AAC 27.831. Gillnet specifications and operations for Bristol Bay Area.

(a) No single herring gillnet may exceed 100 fathoms in length, and the aggregate length of gillnets in use by a CFEC herring interim-use or limited entry permit holder may not exceed 100 fathoms.

(b) No more than 100 fathoms of herring gillnet may be operated from any herring fishing vessel.

ISSUE: In the Togiak herring fishery, gillnetters are limited to 50 fathoms of gear by regulation. Past practice is that, every year fishermen have been allowed to fish 100 fathoms of gear by emergency order because participation rates are below and this would increase the catching power for fishermen. Increasing gear has been an effective management tool to keep the allocation ratio’s in-line. We would like to remove the emergency order required allowing 100 fathoms of gillnet gear to be used at the onset of the fishery because it is unneeded, burdensome and the fishery biologist has to EO 100 fathoms every year.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The fishery biologist will continue having to make the same emergency order year after year.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No. It reduces the workload of our fisheries manager and provides additional opportunity to balance the allocation ratio between seine/gillnet harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All herring fishermen. This is an effective tool for keeping the allocation ratio’s on track.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Hans Nicholson (SW-09F-005) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 5 - 5 AAC 27.810 to 27.865 Bristol Bay herring fishery. Eliminate reallocation of spawn on kelp quota as follows:

Regulations that give 50% of our unused spawn on kelp quota to the seiners and gillnetters should be eliminated. If they want our allocation, they can lease it from us, the same way these same canneries lease their crab and Pollock quota from each other. If we do not use the quota and we do not lease it, then we should be able to save those fish for next year.

The spawn on kelp permit holders should also be allowed to use our 1,500 ton allocation for kelp pounding, as has been allowed in Norton Sound.

- 4 - ISSUE: The Seattle canneries completely control the herring seine and gillnet fisheries at Togiak. They only buy fish from their pet fishermen and a few CDQ insiders. They will never buy our spawn on kelp because if there are no buyers, then by regulation our unused allocation will transfer to the seine and gillnet fleet that they control.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Most Alaskan fishermen and kelp permit holders, like myself, will never fish Togiak again.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Pounding would cause less waste compared to seining or gillnetting because no fish die. We would just harvest the eggs and the fish would swim away and return next year.

Pounding would also result in a more valuable product than picking wild kelp does.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Spawn on kelp permit holders would get our allocation back, that was taken from us.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Several big canneries might go bankrupt.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Pay big money for campaign contributions and consulting fees and change the rules that way. Rejected because I have no money and there might be FBI problems.

PROPOSED BY: Sidney A. Nelson (SC-09F-012) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 6 - 5 AAC 27.865(b)(7). Bristol Bay Herring Management Plan. Allocate unharvested spawn on kelp quota to food and bait as follows:

(b)(7) The maximum exploitation rate for the Bristol Bay herring stock is 20 percent. Before opening the sac roe fishery the department shall set aside approximately 1,500 short tons for the Unimak District herring spawn-on-kelp fishery, and seven percent of the remaining available harvest for the Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery. If the actual harvest level is less than the spawn-on-kelp guideline harvest level, the commissioner may reallocate 50 percent of the remainder to the Togiak District herring sac roe fishery. If no spawn-on-kelp harvest occurs, after the commissioner has reallocated 750 tons to the Togiak District herring sac roe fishery the commissioner may reallocate the remaining 750 tons to the Togiak District herring sac roe fishery the commissioner may reallocate the remaining 750 tons to the Dutch Harbor food and bait fishery.

ISSUE: Increase the quantity (tons) of food and bait herring to be harvested in the Unimak, Akutan and Unalaska Districts.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Abundant herring stocks will remain unharvested. There is active demand for these food and bait herring in the local area. These herring

- 5 - bring a higher price per pound than sac roe herring fisheries. There are abundant stocks that can be harvested locally in the Dutch Harbor area.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? These herring are post-spawn and are actively feeding and receive a much higher economic value than other harvested herring. There is a 100% utilization of these herring due to their size and quality.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The State of Alaska for increased value of the herring resource along with the seiners and gillnetters that participate in this food and bait fishery.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? This is an un-harvested resource therefore no one will suffer.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-126) ******************************************************************************

- 6 -

PROPOSAL 8 - 5 AAC 67.022. Special Provisions for season, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay Area. Prohibit fishing below the bridge on Brooks River follows:

Make Brooks River and American Creek regulation read the same as Savonoski River drainage regulations. Do not allow fishing below the Bridge on Brooks River.

ISSUE: Brooks River, Savonoski River and American Creek are all Naknek Lake drainages but they all have different seasons and bag limits. This is confusing and there are no biological reasons for this. There is no opportunity to harvest fish in Brooks River above the bridge. Due to erosion, fishing below the floating bridge should not be allowed.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The regulations will stay confusing. A lack of opportunity to harvest fish in Brooks River and American Creek will continue. Fishing will continue below the bridge in waters that should be considered “outlet waters of Brooks River”.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen who want to keep a rainbow in Brooks River and American Creek.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen who keep fish below the bridge in Brooks River.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Make Brooks River regulations the same as American Creek regulations. We rejected this solution because it’s more restrictive. This would be our second solution.

PROPOSED BY: King Salmon Village Tribe (HQ-09F-022) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 9 - 5 AAC 67.022(g). Special provisions for season, bag, possession and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay Area. Close sport fishing within quarter mile of Klutak, Iowithla, and Koggiling creeks as follows:

(g)(6) in the Nushagak River within a ¼ mile radius of the Iowithla River, Klutuk and Koggiling creeks sport fishing is closed year around;

ISSUE: Sport fishing guides camping and fishing for King Salmon at the stream entrances to the Klutuk Creek below Ekwok, Iowithla, and the Koggiling. These stream mouths are staging areas for King Salmon trying to enter. Due to the increased sport fishing and sport-guided fishing, these fish are very vulnerable and caught at a very high rate.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The potential of over-fishing of these stocks is detrimental to the long-term sustainability of King Salmon that spawn in these streams.

- 7 - Within the last few years, King Salmon returns have been very low in the Nushagak River. The King Salmon escapement curve during the early part of the season has been well below projections causing termination of the commercial harvest the last two years. Escapement requirements have only been achieved because of escapement throughout the entire summer.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No. It is more of a resource and sustainability issue.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? King Salmon stocks that spawn in these streams. Everyone will benefit if these stocks are able to sustain themselves.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Only those fishermen and guides that fish these stream entrances.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Nushagak AC (SW-09F-008) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 10 - 5 AAC 67.022. Special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol bay Area. Revise regulations regarding Alagnak River closure as follows:

Set the season and bag limit for the lakes in the Alagnak River drainage the same as the Naknek Lake regulations.

ISSUE: The lakes, in the Alagnak River drainage, are closed to fishing when the Alagnak River closes to protect spawning rainbow. It was never the intention of the BOF to close the lakes when the Alagnak River is closed.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishing opportunity will continue to be lost for no biological reason.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen who want to enjoy the experience of fishing the lakes, in the Alagnak River drainage, during the spring.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one because there are no conservation concerns in the Alagnak River drainage lakes.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We did not consider any other solution.

PROPOSED BY: King Salmon Village Tribe (HQ-09F-024) ******************************************************************************

- 8 -

PROPOSAL 11 - 5 AAC 67.022(d)(11). Special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay Area. Correct regulatory error regarding sport fishing for king salmon in Big Creek Drainage as follows:

67.022(d)(11) in the Big Creek drainage upstream of an ADF&G regulatory marker located upstream one-half mile upstream of its confluence with the Naknek River (Peon Hole) [IS CLOSED TO SPORT FISHING FOR KING SALMON;] king salmon may not be possessed or retained; all king salmon must be immediately released. [A PERSON MAY NOT REMOVE A KING SALMON FROM THE WATER BEFORE RELEASING THE FISH.]

PROBLEM: This is a housekeeping proposal. An administrative error incorrectly recorded this regulation approved by the Board of Fisheries in 2001 regarding sport fishing for king salmon in Big Creek.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The codified regulations will not reflect actions approved by the board.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This housekeeping proposal would correctly define the codified regulations for fishery managers, enforcement staff and anglers.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None; this is a housekeeping proposal.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-130) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 12 - 5 AAC 67.020(2). Bag limits, possession limits, and size limits for Bristol Bay Area; and 5 AAC 67.022(D)(2). Special provisions for seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Bristol Bay Area. Correct regulatory error regarding bag and possession limits for king salmon in Bristol Bay Area as follows:

5AAC 67.020(2) king salmon (salt waters) 3 per day, 3 in possession, of which only 2 [1] fish may be 28 inches or greater in length;…

5AAC 67.022(d)(2) In all flowing waters of the Naknek River drainage, from March 1 through November 14, only unbaited, [SINGLE-HOOK,] artificial lures may be used;

PROBLEM: This is a housekeeping proposal. When the codified regulations were converted from a matrix format to a text format, a transcription error incorrectly defined these sport fishing regulations in the book.

- 9 -

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The codified regulations will not describe actions approved by the Board of Fisheries.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This housekeeping proposal would correctly define the codified regulations for fishery managers, enforcement staff, and anglers.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None; this is a housekeeping proposal.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-132) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 13 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New Section. Establish a fish refuge in Bristol Bay as follows:

In support of the necessary steps to establish a fish refuge in Bristol Bay area watersheds, consistent with AS 16.05.251(a)(1), this proposal requests the Board to make a recommendation, via resolution, to the Alaska State Legislature. The recommendation follows:

A RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES Supporting Legislative Action To Augment Protection Of Fish Habitat in the Kvichak and Nushagak River Drainages

WHEREAS, The Kvichak and Nushagak River drainages of the Bristol Bay region are among the most productive wild salmon watersheds in North America and sustain the largest wild sockeye salmon runs in the world, as well as world-class trout fishing; and

WHEREAS, The existing mainstays of the economy in this region – subsistence use, commercial fishing, and sport fishing and hunting – are highly dependent on these productive watersheds; and

WHEREAS, The important fishery resources within these watersheds could suffer negative environmental consequences from potential large scale sulfide mine development, including effects on fish habitat, acid mine drainage, and other water quality issues resulting from mine tailings and exposed rock, that may require ongoing remediation efforts for an indefinite period of time; and

WHEREAS, The Board of Fisheries’ Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries states that “in the aggregate, Alaska's salmon fisheries are healthy and sustainable largely because of abundant pristine habitat and the application of sound, precautionary, conservation management practices" (5 AAC 39.222(a)(1)); and

WHEREAS, The Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries states that in the

- 10 - management of salmon fisheries: “all essential salmon habitat in marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems and access of salmon to these habitats should be protected”; that “salmon habitat in fresh water should be protected on a watershed basis, including appropriate management of riparian zones, water quality, and water quantity”; that "salmon habitats should not be perturbed beyond natural boundaries of variation" (5 AAC 39.222(c)); and

WHEREAS, The highly productive fishery resources within these watersheds merit more than the standard level of protection that is now provided under State law and regulation; and

WHEREAS, The Alaska Board of Fisheries is aware of legislation introduced in the 2007-2008 Alaska State Legislative session to create the Jay Hammond State Game Refuge (SB 67) under Title 16 of the Alaska Statues (wherein “game refuge” is inclusive of “fish” and “fish habitat”) which encompassed the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages; and

WHEREAS, Following board deliberations at their March 9-13, 2007 board meeting, the Alaska Board of Fish “found that the current habitat protections for Bristol Bay fishery resources are not sufficient and acted to continue its Bristol Bay habitat committee”1; and

WHEREAS, At their March 9-13, 2007 board meeting, the Alaska Board of Fisheries voted to not take action on the 2006 Bristol Bay Finfish Proposal #1212 which proposed to create a fish refuge within these watersheds because of its redundancy with pending legislation3 to create the Jay Hammond State Game Refuge (SB 67); and

WHEREAS, The Board of Fisheries has authority under AS 16.05.251(a)(1) to offer recommendations to the Alaska State Legislature regarding the establishment of a fish refuge; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Alaska Board of Fisheries recommends to the Alaska State Legislature that additional regulatory protections be enacted as needed to ensure the continued health and viability of fish habitat in the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Alaska Board of Fish recommends to the Alaska State Legislature that any additional regulatory protections for fish habitat in these drainages would allow subsistence, recreational and commercial fishing, hunting, and trapping under state and federal regulations.

1 See: “Preliminary Summary of Actions Alaska Board of Fisheries Statewide Finfish and Supplemental Issues March 9 - 13, 2007 Anchorage” available at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/meetsum/2006_2007/bof-mar07-psum.pdf

2 Proposal available at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/meetinfo/2006_2007/fprop2006-2007.php

3 See: “Preliminary Summary of Actions Alaska Board of Fisheries Statewide Finfish and Supplemental Issues March 9 - 13, 2007 Anchorage” available at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/meetsum/2006_2007/bof-mar07-psum.pdf

- 11 -

ISSUE: The watersheds of the Bristol Bay region support some of the most productive wild salmon ecosystems in North America and sustain the largest wild sockeye salmon fishery in the world. The existing mainstays of the economy in this region - subsistence use, commercial fishing, and wilderness sport fishing and hunting– are also dependent on these productive watersheds. The Board of Fisheries’ Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries states that “in the aggregate, Alaska's salmon fisheries are healthy and sustainable largely because of abundant pristine habitat and the application of sound, precautionary, conservation management practices" (5 AAC 39.222(a)(1)). But some salmon habitat in the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds of the Bristol Bay region faces potential major, environmental impacts from one or more large-scale metallic sulfide mines for copper and gold which are being considered in theses watersheds that support these fisheries. Large-scale sulfide mining poses risks to fish and fish habitat especially from acid mine drainage, a process that dissolves metals and renders them toxic to fish and other wildlife. Acid mine drainage and other water quality issues resulting from mine tailings and exposed rock may require ongoing remediation action and monitoring in perpetuity. There is considerable uncertainty about whether state policy "to effectively assure sustained yield and habitat protection for wild salmon stocks" 5 AAC 39.222(a)) and that "salmon habitats should not be perturbed beyond natural boundaries of variation" 5 AAC 39.222(c) can be upheld in light of the scale of development being considered.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If additional regulatory protections are not provided for the fish habitat within the Nushagak and Kvichak River, there is considerable risk of fish habitat loss and reduced sustained yield of wild salmon and resident fish stocks.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? This proposal requests that the Board pass a resolution supporting legislative action to augment protection of fish habitat in the Kvichak and Nushagak River Drainages. Depending on action taken by the legislature this could result in a greater level of protection, all those who fish, hunt, trap or otherwise use fish and wildlife from the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds, as well as those who provide services to such users, will have greater assurance that the fish and wildlife stocks will be available in future years.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Action resulting from this proposal is not intended to impinge in any way on subsistence, recreational and commercial fishing, hunting, and trapping allowed under state and federal regulations. It is not anticipated that users of fish or wildlife from the Kvichak or Nushagak watersheds will suffer or be faced with any displacement of their usual practices. Operators of large-scale non-renewable resource extraction projects may have to modify their operations if they result in environmental effects on fish habitat that are not compatible with protections enacted by the Legislature.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered requesting the Alaska Board of Fisheries to establish a fish refuge, subject to approval by the Alaska State Legislature, per their authority under AS 16.05.251(a)(1). However, we feel that the Alaska State Legislature is the

- 12 - most appropriate institution to take the lead in establishing a refuge as one potential means of extending additional protections to the fish habitat within these watersheds.

PROPOSED BY: Leader Creek Fisheries LLC, Norman VanVactor and John Lowrance; Naknek Family Fisheries, Izetta Chambers; Alaska Sportsman’s Lodge and Alaska Sportsman’s Bear Trail Lodge, Brian Kraft; and Curyung Tribal Council, Chief Tom Tilden (HQ-09F-155) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 14 - 5 AAC 06.335. Minimum distance between units of gear. Require removal of all setnet gear during drift gillnet openings as follows:

Add to 5 AAC 06.335(d) ”All set gillnet gear, lines, anchors, stakes, buoys, kegs, etc. shall be removed from any and all district waters during any and all driftnet only commercial fishing openings, to enforce the Bristol Bay Allocation plans of 5 AAC 06.355.”

ISSUE: The issue of set net gear, left in the water and obstructing, and interfering with drift gillnet gear, during driftnet only openings in Bristol Bay.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The self explanatory criminal statue, with the Board of Fisheries ignoring this issue during the 2006 Dillingham meetings, and with continued support of Criminal Action, by refusing drift gear operations, the same compliance with the same state criminal statute enforced by the Alaska State Troopers during set and drift openings, using with 5 AAC 06.335.

AS 16.10.055. Interference with commercial fishing gear. A person who willfully or with reckless disregard of the consequences, interferes with or damages the commercial fishing gear of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor, for the purposes of this section “interference” means the physical disturbance of gear which results in a loss of fishing time, and “reckless disregard of the consequences” means a lack of consideration for the consequences of one’s acts in a manner that is reasonable likely to damage the property of another.”

And; 5 AAC 39.002 Liability for violations. Unless otherwise provided in 5 AAC 01-5 AAC 41 or in AS 16, a person who violates a provision of 5 AAC 01 - 5 AAC 41 is strictly liable for the offense, regardless of the intent. and; AS 11.16. PARTIES TO CRIME, Sec. 11.16.100. Legal accountability based upon conduct. AS 11.20. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY AS 11.76.110. INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (a) A person commits the crime of interference with constitutional rights if (1) the person injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another person with intent to deprive that person of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state; (2) the person intentionally injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another person because that person has exercised or enjoyed a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the

- 13 - constitution or laws of this state; or (3) under color of law, ordinance, or regulation of this state or a municipality or other political subdivision of this state, the person intentionally deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state. (b) In a prosecution under this section, whether the injury, oppression, threat, intimidation, or deprivation concerns a right, privilege, or immunity granted by the constitution or laws of this state is a question of law.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, see; 5 AAC 06.355 Bristol Bay commercial set and drift gillnet sockeye salmon fisheries management and allocation plan. (B) It is the intent of the Board of Fisheries that Bristol Bay sockeye salmon catches be allocated between drift and set gillnet fishers by district. To achieve this allocation, the department shall manage, to the extent practicable, the commercial sockeye salmon fisheries to achieve the allocation percentages established in 5 AAC 06.364, 5 AAC 06.365, 5 AAC 06.366, and 5 AAC 06.367. (3) for the harvest of surplus salmon, the board adopts the following goals; (A) salmon will be harvested in an orderly manner (B) salmon will be harvested consistent with specific regulatory management plans for each district; and (C) salmon will be harvested in a way to improve product quality; By allowing the drift net fleet access to more area during drift only openings, denied by the Boards previous action with implementing the allocation plans, as proposed by the set net fleet during previous board meetings. This proposal promotes the quality issues by preventing the drifter to flood onto set net buoys, lines and gear, left in the fishing districts during drift only openings, and requiring the drift net fisher sometimes tow hard, or round haul, off this gear when it’s not being used to fish, but prevents access to fishing area in a district closed to set net fishing.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Both gear groups would benefit from this proposal. Set net gear removed from the district during drift only openings, is in no danger of a “property loss,” that is in “interference” with drift gear, that’s not fishing, during these drift only openings. This proposal protects the private property of both user groups, and as clearly defined with the “reckless disregard of the consequences” that the Board has ignored since implementation of the numerous Bristol Bay allocation plans promoted by the set net fleet. The set net fisher, who sits on the beach waiting for openings, and requested by the setnet fleet that the board implemented with 5 AAC 06.355, with the boards “reckless disregard of the consequences.”

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The proposal takes issue, with some set net fictions that removal of their gear is impossible. Observed during the end of every season for decades. This gear being removed and put into storage for the winter, as if such a problem like removing these running lines, anchors, buoys, etc. due to tide, weather, or whatever erroneous reason given, that evidently shouldn’t have originally been deployed, if this gear, lines, anchors etc, are so difficult to remove, as proposal #19 failed in the 2006 Bristol Bay Board meetings, obviously

- 14 - due to the statute reading the “reckless disregard of the consequences” that has obviously confused many members of our previous Board of Fisheries. Like that Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty and property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And if that “equal protection clause” is confusing to this Board of Fisheries, and your Juneau Lawyers, We also have an older one, from the Magna Charta; clause 40 “To no one we will sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” “His obligations, although more troublesome to him than others, is the same as that as everyone else. It is the purely negative duty not to obstruct or interfere with a right to property.”

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The Board could repeal 5 AAC 06.355, which applies to both commercial user groups; a doubtful theory based on both gear groups allocation plans, in benefit of both set and drift gillnet groups.

PROPOSED BY: Todd Granger (HQ-09F-077) ******************************************************************************* Note, this proposal was previously considered by the board during the December 2006 meeting. It was tabled to the board's Salmon Industry Restructuring Committee for additional review and scheduled for the December 2009 Bristol Bay Finfish meeting for possible adoption.

PROPOSAL 15 - 5 AAC 06.341. Vessel specifications and operations. Eliminate 32 foot limit on vessels in Bristol Bay drift gillnet fishery as follows:

Amend 5 AAC 06.341 to eliminate the 32-foot limit on vessels used in the driftnet fishery in Bristol Bay.

ISSUE: Vessel safety, quality of salmon caught and the arbitrary 32-foot limit on the length of vessels allowed to fish in Bristol Bay’s driftnet fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the board continues to limit the size of the vessels to 32 feet, harvesters will continue to be limited in the equipment and the ability to outfit their vessels to make improvements in fish quality while maintaining safety aboard the boats. At present many 32-foot vessels within the fishery just do not have the capacity or space to properly install an RSW unit on the size and power needed to utilize holds that are filled with a mixture of ice and water. At present, one need only look in a boat yard in Naknek or Dillingham to see many boats do not even look like boats, evidence of efforts made to put too much into a 32-foot boat. Frankly, some of those boats look like a disaster or serious accident waiting to happen.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The proposal is made to specifically address the need to allow harvesters to design, purchase, adapt current vessels to safely accommodate equipment used to chill or freeze salmon that are caught in Bristol Bay. The quantities of salmon that are caught in a short time in this fishery require a large deck space and large capacity to hold and treat thousands of pounds of product within hours. Some harvesters may see the use of larger and longer vessels as an option to help achieve such goals as processing and freezing their own product on board, in

- 15 - combination with marketing their own product.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? If larger and longer vessels are allowed, fishermen that would like a bigger and longer vessel to accommodate and operate refrigeration and possibly freezing equipment on board would benefit. Vessel manufacturers and fabricators would benefit from the work that would be generated.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? If a larger vessel has complete advantage over smaller vessels, the smaller vessels will become obsolete in the fishery. But, I do not think a complete loss of smaller vessels form the fleet would be realized, as smaller vessels can and will always be able to fish shallower waters. They are also generally faster and much more economical to operate.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? As mentioned above, the elimination of the 32-foot limit would not necessarily mean the end of smaller vessels which will always have their own advantages and value over large vessels. It depends on how a fisherman chooses to fish. He or she may choose not to use any type of RSW or CSW system, as gas engine, outboard engines, jet water propulsion, etc. to make ends meet for their individual needs. I thought about proposing a longer limit on the length of vessel, such as 42-feet but the reality is that fishermen will not want a vessel that is too long or too deep and much of the type of vessel depends on a fisherman’s favorite way or area to fish. The importance is giving harvesters the option and ability to choose what he or she knows is best for their personal situation.

PROPOSED BY: Erick Sabo (HQ-09F-009) ******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal was previously considered by the board during the December 2006 meeting. It was tabled to the board's Salmon Industry Restructuring Committee for additional review and scheduled for the December 2009 Bristol Bay Finfish meeting for possible adoption.

PROPOSAL 16 - 5 AAC 06.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow multiple permit use as follows:

Allow anyone who owns two setnet permits to operate them in accordance with existing regulations and anyone who owns two drift permits to be allowed to fish them in accordance with 5 AAC 06.333.

ISSUE: A person may own two permits but he can only fish one at a time. HB251 gives the board the authority to allow one person to own and operate two permits at the same time. I am asking the board to allow anyone who owns two setnet permits to be allowed to fish them at the same time and anyone who owns two drift permits to be allowed to fish them in accordance with 5 AAC 06.333.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be no benefit to anyone who owns two permits.

- 16 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Any fisherman who buys two fishing permits.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one because the permits have been fished in the past.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Vince Webster (HQ-09F-007) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 17 - 5 AAC 06.331 (f) Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow multiple permit use as follows:

(f) Except as provided in (u) of this section, a person may not operate more than two set gillnets, and the aggregate length of set gillnets operated by that person may not exceed 50 fathoms in length. Notwithstanding 5AAC 39.240 (a), a person may assist in operation or transportation of additional set gillnet gear when the CFEC interim-use or entry permit card holder of the additional gear is present in compliance with 5 AAC 39.107.

(u) A CFEC permit holder who holds two Bristol Bay set gillnet CFEC permits may operate no more than four set gillnets, with no more than 100 fathoms of set gillnet gear in the aggregate. No single set gillnet may be more than 50 fathoms in length. Both of the permit holder’s five-digit CFEC permit serial numbers followed by the letter “D” to identify the gillnet as a dual permit set gillnet must be located on the identification buoys required by 5 AAC 39.280 and 5 AAC 06.334. At least one cork every 10 fathoms along the cork line must be plainly and legibly marked with both CFEC permit numbers of the CFEC permit holder. All identifiers must be displayed in a manner that are plainly visible and unobscured and have permanent symbols in a color that contrasts with the background.

ISSUE: This proposal asks the Board to exercise its authority under HB251 to allow one person to own and operate two Bristol Bay CFEC set gillnet permits in accordance with existing regulations and the proposed regulatory amendment.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishermen who have purchased additional permits in order to survive an adverse economic climate will continue to rely on family members or crewmembers to hold permits and shore fishery leases or be forced to downsize. Single permit holders will continue to be economically marginalized.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Increased profitability derived from fishing multiple set gillnets allows more disposable income to invest in capital improvements that increase product quality. Additionally, a more consistent annual production afforded by multiple nets will provide a solid foundation from which an operation can vertically integrate.

- 17 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All current Bristol Bay set gillnet permit holders will realize an increase in the fair market value of their permits. Existing multi-permit operations will avoid present and future risks associated with relinquishing ownership rights to family members and crewmembers. Single permit holders will be afforded a safe regulatory mechanism to both expand their operation and increase its profitability.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? New entrants into the fishery will probably pay a higher fair market value for a permit. However, access will probably not be precluded. Similar ‘stacking’ measures have passed for both the Kodiak set gillnet fleet and for the Bristol Bay drift gillnet fleet and permits are currently available for purchase in both of these fisheries.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Fishing cooperatives, joint ventures, a permit holder appoints a proxy, limiting the amended regulations to family members. Rejected because they do not address the issue and/or may not conform to CFEC regulations.

PROPOSED BY: Dylan Braund and Tom Rollman, Jr. (SC-09F-022) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 18 - 5 AAC 06.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow multiple permit use as follows:

5 AAC 06.331 (f) Except as provided in 5 AAC 06.XXX, a [A] person may not operate more than two set gillnets, and the aggregate length of set gillnets operated by that person may not exceed 50 fathoms in length……..

5 AAC 06.XXX A CFEC permit holder who holds two Bristol Bay set gillnet CFEC permits may operate no more than four set gillnets, with no more than 100 fathoms of set gillnet gear in the aggregate. No single set gillnet may be more than 50 fathoms in length. Both of the permit holders five-digit CFEC permit serial numbers followed by the letter “D” to identify the gillnet as a dual permit set gillnet must be located on the identification buoy and the site markers required by 5AAC 06.334. At least one cork every 10 fathoms along the cork line must be plainly and legibly marked with both CFEC permit numbers of the CFEC permit holder. All identifiers must be displayed in a manner that are plainly visible and unobscured and have permanent symbols in a color that contrasts with the background.

ISSUE: The breakup of existing setnet operations when family permit holders reach adulthood, retire, etc. This proposal would allow a Bristol Bay set gillnet permit holder to hold and operate two Bristol Bay set gillnet permits.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unlike other fisheries, a setnet site is often a family operation, with several permits held by family members and fished as a whole. Currently a permit holder can only operate a single permit. This system works fine until a young adult enters a different line of work, or until a parent reaches an elderly age and can not fish anymore. Then you

- 18 - have only 2 choices: break up the operation and sell the permits outright, or transfer the permits into someone else’s name with the idea that they will continue to fish with you—a serious gamble as these permits are now legally out of your control and can be sold, lost in a divorce, seized by the IRS, etc.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Many setnet families. For example, in our 4 permit operation, permits are held by my wife, myself, my father, and my mother’s permit is held by my son. My son recently graduated and wants to try something else. My father still actively fishes, but at 78—for how much longer? My parents have owned these permits for 35 years and the permits should continue to provide for them in their elder years --but only if we can keep them in the family. Most setnet families eventually have to face this dilemma. This proposal would allow them to remain a viable family operation. My goal is not to increase the size of set net operations. My goal is to keep them from getting smaller.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. This proposal does not add more gear in the water; rather it seeks to maintain existing operations at their current levels of effort. A similar regulation exists in the Kodiak set gillnet fishery.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I could think of no others which would work.

PROPOSED BY: Eric M. Beeman (HQ-09F-033) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 19 - 5 AAC 06.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow multiple permit use as follows:

Allow multiple setnet permits to be fished by one person.

ISSUE: the problem is that our family, like many others, has multiple permit operations in Bristol Bay we have fished as a family for 22 years. Now one of our permit holders is off to college and will be unable to join us fishing for a few seasons. We shouldn’t have to find some one else to transfer the permit to. Many problems surface, person you transfer to flakes out and leaves mid-season, tries to rip you off for permit, etc. The list goes on.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Permit holder will still have to do shacky transfer to someone outside of our family. Many unnecessary transfers. Possible lost income due to not being able to find someone to transfer to.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Family run setnet operations.

- 19 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Kim Rice (HQ-09F-089) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 20 - 5 AAC 06.333. Requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Allow one person to own two permits and use 200 fathom nets as follows:

Allow one person to own and benefit from the permit stacking privileges granted by the board in the Bristol Bay driftnet fishery as allowed by 2006 legislation.

ISSUE: Too many participants in the Bristol Bay fishery as indicated in the Commercial Fish Entry Commission’s optimum number study. Present regulations allow vessels to “stack” permits provided that the permits are held by different individuals. Allowing the two permits to be held by one individual will reduce the transactional difficulties in having separately owned permits on one vessel.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The incentive to “stack” permits will not be sufficient to adequately reduce the amount of gear on the grounds contributing to continued economic distress, management difficulty and enforcement of the regulation.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. With fewer vessels, quality problems inherent in line fisheries will be reduced.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Bristol Bay drift permit holders and crews as fewer vessels and less gear per permit will give more opportunity for the remaining vessels and fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who are satisfied with crowded fishing grounds, low returns on their commercial fishing businesses and substandard fish quality.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Additional privileges for stacking with two separate permit holders on board, however, the transactional difficulties would still not be resolved.

PROPOSED BY: Charles W. Treinen (HQ-09F-008) ******************************************************************************

- 20 - PROPOSAL 21 - 5 AAC 06.333. Requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Allow use of 300 fathoms of gear with two stacked permits as follows:

Amend to read: 5 AAC 06.333(a)

5 AAC 06.333 REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE USE OF DUAL GILLNET LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS IN BRISTOL BAY. (a) Two Bristol Bay drift gillnet CFEC permit holders may concurrently fish from the same vessel and operate jointly two equal 150 fathom gear lengths using two equal Bristol Bay Salmon Drift Limited Entry Permits, for a total of 300 fathoms of gear.

ISSUE: Illegal allocation, “within a single fishery” implemented by the Board of Fisheries. See; State, Alaska Board of Fisheries v. Grunert (04/21/2006) sp-6006, 139 P3d 1226, And W. Johnson et al v. AK Dept. Fish & Game (11/29/91), 836 P 2d 896,

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE: The continued criminal conspiracy, see; (18 U.S.C. 241) by the State of Alaska Board of Fish, and Fish and Game, to deny the same Limited Entry Permit holder a equal allocation of the commercial fishery resource, currently denied by the State, for this “single fishery” S03T, and in “Grunert” by persons stacking permits using 5 AAC 06.333, as the Court writes clearly “In Grunert I, we struck down former 5 AAC 15.359 (2002) because it was fundamentally at odds with the Limited Entry Act…We also explained that the Limited Entry Act was enacted to protect economically dependant fishers…Alaska Statute 16. 05.251(e) authorizes the board to allocate fishery resources among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries. We explained in Grunert I that among means between, not within, the fisheries. The boards authorizing statute defines fishery as a specific administration area in which a specific fishery resource is taken with a specific type of gear…The board cannot divide what has historically been a single fishery by simply tinkering with ancillary apparatus and seine dimensions. The emergency regulation therefore authorized the board to allocate fisheries resources within a single fishery, in violation of the authorizing statute, AS 16.05.251(e). We note that the board’s allocation of the harvest salmon between the cooperative and open fishers was potentially arbitrary and capricious. Allowing some, but not all…permit holders to operate different types and amounts of fishing equipment potentially raises questions of efficiency, arbitrary decision making, and equal protection.65 The allocation may be venerable to attack on the theory that under a two-subfishery system, the open fishers only have access to a small percentage of the allocation for the whole Chignik fishery.66 Grunert contends that allowing open and cooperative fishers may violate subsection .150(a) of the Limited Entry Act. That subsection provides that an entry permit authorizes the permittee to operate a unit of gear within a specified fishery. 67 Unit of gear is defined by the Limited Entry Act as the maximum amount of a specific type of gear that can be fished by a person under regulations established by the Board of Fisheries defining the legal requirements for that type of gear.68”

The Sharecroppers, holding S03T Limited Entry Permit that only are sometimes allowed one third share of Bristol Bay Allocation, was also discussed more recently in another Court which WE Established;

- 21 - WARDS COVE PACKING CO. V. ATONIO, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting… The harshness of these results is well demonstrated by the facts of this case. The salmon industry as described by this record takes us back to a kind of overt and institutionalized discrimination we have not dealt with in years: a total residential and work environment organized on principles of racial stratification and segregation, which, as JUSTICE STEVENS points out, resembles a plantation economy. Post, at 664, n. 4. This industry long has been characterized by a taste for discrimination of the old-fashioned sort: a preference for hiring nonwhites to fill its lowest level positions, on the condition that they stay there. The majority's legal rulings essentially immunize these practices from attack under a Title VII disparate-impact analysis. Sadly, this comes as no surprise. One wonders whether the majority still believes that race discrimination - or, more accurately, race discrimination against nonwhites - is a problem in our society, or even remembers that it ever was. Cf. Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).

Evidently this Act of Congress, after Wards Cove, and the “The Civil Right’s Act of 1991” still confuses the Alaska Department of Law” and this Board also, some things never change, for another “disparate impact attack.”

And Justice Harlan, in dissent;

PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) The thirteenth amendment does not permit the withholding or the deprivation of any right necessarily inhering in freedom. It not only struck down the institution of slavery as previously existing in the United States, but it prevents the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude. It decreed universal civil freedom in this country. This court has so adjudged. But, that amendment having been found inadequate to the protection of the rights of those who had been in slavery, it was followed by the fourteenth amendment, which added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty, by declaring that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' and that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These two amendments, if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. Finally, and to the end that no citizen should be denied, on account of his race, the privilege of participating in the political control of his country, it was declared by the fifteenth amendment that 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.' These notable additons to the fundamental law were welcomed by the friends of liberty throughout the world. They removed the race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, a common purpose, namely, to secure 'to a race recently emancipated, a race that through [163 U.S. 537, 556] many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.' They declared, in legal effect, this court has further said, 'that the law in the states shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the states; and in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination

- 22 - shall be made against them by law because of their color.' We also said: 'The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity or right, most valuable to the colored race,-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored; exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy; and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.' It was, consequently, adjudged that a state law that excluded citizens of the colored race from juries, because of their race, however well qualified in other respects to discharge the duties of jurymen, was repugnant to the fourteenth amendment. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306 , 307 S.; Virginia v. Rives, Id. 313; Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 , 386; Bush v. Com., 107 U.S. 110, 116 , 1 S. Sup. Ct. 625. At the present term, referring to the previous adjudications, this court declared that 'underlying all of those decisions is the principle that the constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the general government or the states against any citizen because of his race. All citizens are equal before the law.' Gibson v. State, 162 U.S. 565 , 16 Sup. Ct. 904….In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.

AS 11.76.110. INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (a) A person commits the crime of interference with constitutional rights if (1) the person injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another person with intent to deprive that person of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state; (2) the person intentionally injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another person because that person has exercised or enjoyed a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state; or (3) under color of law, ordinance, or regulation of this state or a municipality or other political subdivision of this state, the person intentionally deprives another of a right, privilege, or immunity in fact granted by the constitution or laws of this state. (b) In a prosecution under this section, whether the injury, oppression, threat, intimidation, or deprivation concerns a right, privilege, or immunity granted by the constitution or laws of this state is a question of law. (c) Interference with constitutional rights is a class A misdemeanor.

And Chief Justice Marshall

This brings us to the second inquiry; which is,

2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.

In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

- 23 - 'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.'

And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'

The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

If this obloquy is to be cast on the jurisprudence of our country, it must arise from the peculiar character of the case.

". . . if two or more persons shall, within the limits of any State, band, conspire, or combine together to do any act in violation of the rights, privileges, or immunities of any person, to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which, committed within a place under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, would, under any law of the United States then in force, constitute the crime of either murder, manslaughter, mayhem, robbery, assault and battery, perjury, subornation of perjury, criminal obstruction of legal process or resistance of officers in discharge of official duty, arson, or larceny; and if one or more of the parties to said conspiracy or combination shall do [365 U.S. 167, 181] any act to effect the object thereof, all the parties to or engaged in said conspiracy or combination, whether principals or accessories, shall be deemed guilty of a felony . . . ." It was this provision that raised the greatest storm. It was 2 that was rewritten so as to be in the main confined to conspiracies to interfere with a federal or state officer in the performance of his duties. 17 Stat. 13. Senator Trumbull said: 26 "Those provisions were changed, and as the bill passed the House of Representatives, it was understood by the members of that body to go no further than to protect persons in the rights which were guarantied to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and it did not undertake to furnish redress for wrongs done by one person upon another in any of the States of the Union in violation of their laws, unless he also violated some law of the United States, nor to punish one person for an ordinary assault and battery committed on another in a State." But 1 - the section with which we are here concerned - was not changed as respects any feature with which we are presently concerned. 27 The words "under [365 U.S. 167, 182] color of" law were in the legislation from the beginning to the end. The changes hailed by the opposition - indeed the history of the evolution of 2 much relied upon now - are utterly irrelevant to the problem before us, viz., the meaning of "under color of" law. The vindication of States' rights which was hailed in the amendments to 2 raises no implication as to the construction to be given to "color of any law" in 1. The scope of 1 - under any construction - is admittedly narrower than

- 24 - was the scope of the original version of 2. Opponents of the Act, however, did not fail to note that by virtue of 1 federal courts would sit in judgment on the misdeeds of state officers. 28 Proponents of the Act, on the other hand, were aware of the extension of federal power contemplated by every section of the Act. They found justification, however, for this extension in considerations such as those advanced by Mr. Hoar: 29 "The question is not whether a majority of the people in a majority of the States are likely to be attached to and able to secure their own liberties. The question is not whether the majority of the people in every State are not likely to desire to secure their own rights. It is, whether a majority of the people in every State are sure to be so attached to the principles of civil freedom and civil justice as to be as much desirous of preserving the liberties of others as their own, as to insure that under no temptation of party spirit, under no political excitement, under [365 U.S. 167, 183] no jealousy of race or caste, will the majority either in numbers or strength in any State seek to deprive the remainder of the population of their civil rights." Although the legislation was enacted because of the conditions that existed in the South at that time, it is cast in general language and is as applicable to Illinois as it is to the States whose names were mentioned over and again in the debates. It is no answer that the State has a law which if enforced would give relief. The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked. Hence the fact that Illinois by its constitution and laws outlaws unreasonable searches and seizures is no barrier to the present suit in the federal court.

We had before us in United States v. Classic, supra, 20 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 242, 30 which provides a criminal punishment for anyone who "under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom" subjects any inhabitant of a State to the deprivation of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Section 242 first came into the law as 2 of the Civil Rights Act, Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27. After passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, this provision was re-enacted and amended by 17, 18, Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140, 144. 31 The right involved in the Classic case was the right of voters in a primary to have their votes counted. The laws of Louisiana required the defendants "to count the ballots, to record the result of the count, and [365 U.S. 167, 184] to certify the result of the election." United States v. Classic, supra, 325-326. But according to the indictment they did not perform their duty. In an opinion written by Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Stone, in which Mr. Justice Roberts, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Frankfurter joined, the Court ruled, "Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of' state law." Id., 326. There was a dissenting opinion; but the ruling as to the meaning of "under color of" state law was not questioned.

That view of the meaning of the words "under color of" state law, 18 U.S.C. 242, was reaffirmed in Screws v. United States, supra, 108-113. The acts there complained of were committed by state officers in performance of their duties, viz., making an arrest effective. It was urged there, as it is here, that "under color of" state law should not be construed to duplicate in federal law what was an offense under state law. Id. (dissenting opinion) 138-149, 157-161. It was said there, as it is here, that the ruling in the Classic case as to the meaning of "under color of" state law was not in focus and was ill-advised. Id. (dissenting opinion) 146-147. It was argued there, as it is

- 25 - here, that "under color of" state law included only action taken by officials pursuant to state law. Id. (dissenting opinion) 141-146. We rejected that view. Id., 110-113 (concurring opinion) 114- 117. We stated:

"The construction given 20 [18 U.S.C. 242] in the Classic case formulated a rule of law which has become the basis of federal enforcement in this important field. The rule adopted in that case was formulated after mature consideration. It should be good for more than one day only. We do not have here a situation comparable to Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U.S. 96 , where we [365 U.S. 167, 185] overruled a decision demonstrated to be a sport in the law and inconsistent with what preceded and what followed. The Classic case was not the product of hasty action or inadvertence. It was not out of line with the cases which preceded. It was designed to fashion the governing rule of law in this important field. We are not dealing with constitutional interpretations which throughout the history of the Court have wisely remained flexible and subject to frequent re-examination. The meaning which the Classic case gave to the phrase `under color of any law' involved only a construction of the statute. Hence if it states a rule undesirable in its consequences, Congress can change it. We add only to the instability and uncertainty of the law if we revise the meaning of 20 [18 U.S.C. 242] to meet the exigencies of each case coming before us." Id., 112-113. We adhered to that view in Williams v. United States, supra, 99.

Mr. Shellabarger, reporting out the bill which became the Ku Klux Act, said of the provision with which we now deal:

"The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the `civil rights act.'. . . This section of this bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights . . . ." 32 Thus, it is beyond doubt that this phrase should be accorded the same construction in both statutes - in 1979 and in 18 U.S.C. 242. [365 U.S. 167, 186]

Since the Screws and Williams decisions, Congress has had several pieces of civil rights legislation before it. In 1956 one bill reached the floor of the House. This measure had at least one provision in it penalizing actions taken "under color of law or otherwise." 33 A vigorous minority report was filed attacking, inter alia, the words "or otherwise." 34 But not a word of criticism of the phrase "under color of" state law as previously construed by the Court is to be found in that report.

Section 131 (c) of the Act of September 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 634, 637, amended 42 U.S.C. 1971 by adding a new subsection which provides that no person "whether acting under color of law or otherwise" shall intimidate any other person in voting as he chooses for federal officials. A vigorous minority report was filed 35 attacking the wide scope of the new subsection by reason of the words "or otherwise." It was said in that minority report that those words went far beyond what this Court had construed "under color of law" to mean. 36 But there was not a word of criticism directed to the prior construction given by this Court to the words "under color of" law.

- 26 - The Act of May 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 86, uses "under color of" law in two contexts, once when 306 defines "officer of election" and next when 601 (a) gives a judicial remedy on behalf of a qualified voter denied the opportunity to register. Once again there was a Committee report containing minority views. 37 Once again no one challenged the scope given by our prior decisions to the phrase "under color of" law. [365 U.S. 167, 187]

If the results of our construction of "under color of" law were as horrendous as now claimed, if they were as disruptive of our federal scheme as now urged, if they were such an unwarranted invasion of States' rights as pretended, surely the voice of the opposition would have been heard in those Committee reports. Their silence and the new uses to which "under color of" law have recently been given reinforce our conclusion that our prior decisions were correct on this matter of construction.

We conclude that the meaning given "under color of" law in the Classic case and in the Screws and Williams cases was the correct one; and we adhere to it.

In the Screws case we dealt with a statute that imposed criminal penalties for acts "wilfully" done. We construed that word in its setting to mean the doing of an act with "a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right." 325 U.S., at 103 . We do not think that gloss should be placed on 1979 which we have here. The word "wilfully" does not appear in 1979. Moreover, 1979 provides a civil remedy, while in the Screws case we dealt with a criminal law challenged on the ground of vagueness. Section 1979 should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.

“…The physical relation to others is simply a relation of manifested power coextensive with the intent, and will need to have but little said about it when the nature of the intent is settled. When I come to the latter, I shall not attempt a similar analysis to that which has been pursed with regard to intent as an element of liability. For the principals developed as to intent in that connection have no relation to the present subject, and any such analysis so far as it did not fail would be little more than a discussion of evidence. The intent inquired into here must be over manifested, perhaps, but all theories of the grounds on which possession is protected would seem to agree in leading to the requirement that it should be actual, subject, of course, to the necessary limits of legal investigation. But besides our power and intent as towards our fellow-men, there must be a certain degree of power over the object. If there were only one other man in the world, and he was safe under lock and key in jail, the person having the key would not possess the swallows that flew over the prison. This element is illustrated by cases of capture, although no doubt the point at which the line drawn is affected by consideration of the degree of power obtained as against other people, as well as that which has been gained over the object. The Roman and the common law agree that, in general, fresh pursuit of wild animals does not give the pursuer the rights of possession. Until escape has been made impossible by some other means, another may step in and kill or catch and carry off the game if he can. Thus it has been held that an action does not lie against a person for killing and taking a fox which had been pursued by another, and was then actually in the view of the person who had originally found, started and chased it. (See; Board Proposal #28, 2006) (Kent’s Comm. 349, citing Pearson v. Post, 3 Caines, (N.Y.) 175; Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johnson,( N.Y.) 75. The court of the Queen’s Bench (Young v. Hichens, 6 Q. B. 606) even went

- 27 - so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed through the middle and helped himself. But the difference between the power over the object which is sufficient for possession, and that which is not, is clearly one of degree only, and the line may be drawn at different places at different times on grounds just referred it. Thus we are told that the legislature of New York enacted, in 1844, that any one who started and pursued deer in certain counties of that State should be deemed in possession of the game so long as he continued in fresh pursuit of it, and to that extent modified the New York decisions just cited. So, while Justinian decided that a wild beast so badly wounded that it might easily be taken must be actually taken before it belongs to the captors, (Inst. 2. 1, Sec. 13) Judge Lowell, with equal reason, has upheld the contrary custom of the American whalemen in the Arctic Ocean, mentioned above, which gives a whale to the vessel whose iron first remains in it, provided a claim be made before cutting in…” “Possession” from his Lowell Lectures, Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Roosevelt, “Square Deal” Judge.

As this Board has been harpooned on quite a few previous occasions, shown best in the two above cited cases, by Grunert and Johnson, at the Alaska Supreme Court, you really should find, more intelligent representation on the Retarded Restructuring Committee, with Dr. Charles Crapo, another self evident truth, named after the material “among and within” his ears. The Roman Courts and the United States Supreme Court agree that the word means something. (Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 383.)

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? ”Every Person” drift gillnetting and stacking permits with a proposal for equality in permit ownership to “all” Bristol Bay S03T permit holders, and those previously denied the equal concept of allocation, denied by the BOF using the current discriminatory Bristol Bay stacking procedures, with “disparate impacts” to those same holders held by state action to be only a third of a Limited Entry permit, and for reduction in fleet size as defined in 5 AAC 05.1147, with CFEC Optimum Number Report 04-3N. This solution to a Limited Entry Commission that never “Limited” entry into the Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery, shown in the records to be applied in “every” other Limited Entry Salmon Fishery, except for “one.” Which “one it is” could only confuse the States Limited Entry Commission, Alaska Department of Law, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and every Governor of the State of Alaska in office since the Constitutional Amendment was enacted by the voter in 1973, and enacted everywhere except for Bristol Bay, and fishing for the lowest raw product prices paid for Bristol Bay Salmon in 125 years.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No Person holding a S03T Limited Entry Permit, except those who believe that their Limited Entry Permit is worth a whole 150 fathoms but their neighbors stacked model, is only a 50 fathom Limited Entry Permit.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? As with proposal #28 during the 2006 BOF Bristol Bay Meetings to Amend 5 AAC 06.333 with; “Management shall schedule an additional equal

- 28 - fishing period to vessels fishing with two permits, in any regular or special harvest district in the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery.” That the Board took “No Action” on in 2006, and continues the amusing Restructuring Committee’s erroneous previous decisions, relating to the current fleet reduction program from CFEC report 04-3N. ;“…He therefore clings to this hope as a drowning man to the last plank…My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it-see what a mere wreck-mangled ruin-it makes of our once glorious Declaration…”

PROPOSED BY: Todd Granger (HQ-09F-076) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 22 - 5 AAC 06.333. Requirement and specification for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Limit gear to 150 fathoms when NRSHA Management Plan is in effect as follows:

New section to read for all Bristol Bay Fishing Districts: 5 AAC 06.333. (E)(5) Whenever the Naknek River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area (NRSHA) Management Plan is in effect, - 5 AAC 06.06.360 (d)(7) No vessel may have more than 150 fathoms of drift gillnet or 50 fathoms of set gillnet on board.

ISSUE: Whenever the Naknek River Special Harvest Area (NRSHA) is in effect, many, if not all of the drift dual-permit operators transfer to the Nushagak District making it more difficult for single permit operators to competitor. The Department has no way of tracking dual permit usage or enforcement other than the fishermen’s requirement of displaying a “D” after their ADF&G vessel registration number.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishermen using dual permits will continue to overload the Nushagak District whenever the NRSHA is in effect. We believe that current usage of dual permits is even higher than during the last Bristol Bay BOF meeting and that the Department has no way of effectively tracking them. Usage of dual permits would still be permitted whenever the NRSHA is not in effect.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The potential of increasing quality onboard fishing vessels by reducing allowable gear could be perceived especially in times of high abundance.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dual permit operation is not permitted in the East-side districts whenever the NRSHA is in effect. Dual permit holders go where they can maximize usage of extra gear and that is usually the Nushagak and Togiak Districts. Adoption of this regulation would help fishermen who do not have dual permits.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who fish dual permits.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 1) Totally doing away with dual-permits. Not likely to happen. 2) Including Tokiak. The BOF should consider banning the use of dual permits in the

- 29 - Togiak District because it is a small fishery there and the local fishermen who traditionally fish there are economically disenfranchised because they cannot compete at the same level.

PROPOSED BY: Nushagak AC (SW-09F-010) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 23 - 5 AAC 06.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Eliminate use of 200 fathom drift gillnets in Togiak District as follows:

We would like to restrict the Togiak District, in whole, to a maximum length of net to be fished not to exceed 150 fathoms. Eliminate dual permitting in the Togiak District.

ISSUE: Dual permits in Togiak District (200 fathom nets). Togiak is a small fishery and the local fisherman cannot compete with fishermen who are fishing 200 fathom nets. We would like to equalize the fishery by restricting fishermen to a maximum of 150 fathom of nets.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Because the Togiak District is a small fishery, dual permit fishermen have an unfair advantage over local skiff fishermen, and inadvertently and effortlessly cork local drifters and set netters.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? We have been meeting our goals and would like to deep this the same.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All of the fishermen in the Togiak District.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen transferring in with dual permits that have chosen to fish another district and transfer to our late run fishery to capitalize on our resource after the other districts fish run is over.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Restricting our fisheries to local fishermen would also solve the problem, but would not be fair to our fellow fishermen.

PROPOSED BY: Traditional Council of Togiak and Togiak AC (SW-09F-002) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 24 - 5 AAC 06.333. Requirements and specifications for use of 200 fathoms of drift gillnet in Bristol Bay. Eliminate permit stacking as follows:

We need to scrap the double permits and allow no more than one permit with 150 fathoms of gear per boat.

ISSUE: The biggest problem for the average boat in Bristol Bay is the “D” permits.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The average boat with one permit will come up 30% short on every opener, compared to the “D” boats. When the cannery goes on limits, the “D” boats might get to catch 5,000 pounds, and the regular boats only get 3,000 pounds.

- 30 -

After the season, the cannery sets the production bonus so you almost have to have a “D” permit to get a retro. So the one permit boats sell all their fish for maybe 8 cents per pound less.

Some of the canneries also have an arrangement with the troopers where they can transfer their “D” permit boats to another district without waiting the 48 hours. That gives their “D” permit boats 48 or more hours of peak fishing every year compared to the rest of us.

Every year, the average boat loses $5,000 to $10,000 to the “D” permits.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. In heavy fishing with a smaller boat, you have to be very careful with 4 shackles or you might catch more than you can hold. Then your options are to cut the net loose or sink. We have seen a lot more abandoned nets full of rotten fish after the “D” permits were allowed.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who have invested in a boat and have learned the fishery will be able to compete on a level playing field again.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Permit owners (investors) who do not have a boat or a market or the ability to run a boat will not be able to lease their permit any more. The boats for those permits have left the fishery. The investor permits will end up on the beach, where they belong.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Pay big money for campaign contributions and consulting fees and change the rules that way. Rejected because I have no money and there might be FBI problems.

PROPOSED BY: Sidney A. Nelson (SC-09F-013) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 25 - 5 AAC 06.370. Registration and reregistration. Once registered, permit holder must remain there until escapement goal is met as follows:

From June 1, to date certain (set between June 23 and June 30 by the BOF), anyone holding a CFEC permit could fish a certain number of days (set between 5 to 7 days a week by the BOF), in any district without registering. Starting date certain (set between June 23 and June 30), a CFEC permit holder must register in the district they intend to fish. No one would be allowed to transfer until the escapement goal in the district they are transferring to is met. The 48-hour transfer notification would be eliminated.

ISSUE: Harvest of early sockeye in June. Cut down on paper work from the 48-hour transfer for ADFG. Protect the local fisheries.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Early sockeye could continue to go unharvested. The 48 hour transfer period must remain in effect to protect local fisheries.

- 31 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. early sockeye are worth more on the fresh market.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anyone wanting to fish for early sockeye. ADFG will cut the cost of managing the 48 hour transfer process.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anyone who would like to transfer in July before the escapement goal is met.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? General district: mixed stock fishery, loss of local taxes and allocative against set netters.

PROPOSED BY: King Salmon Village Tribe (HQ-09F-023) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 26 - 5 AAC 06.370(k)(1)(2). Registration and re-registration. Eliminate super exclusive status of Togiak District as follows:

Repeal 5 AAC 06.370(k)(1)(2)

ISSUE: Togiak access denied so all Bristol Bay Limited Entry Salmon Permit Holders, into the Togiak District, held as a “super exclusive” fishing district, to the same permit holders who have transfer access to every area of Bristol Bay except Bristol Bay’s Togiak District, a sub-district, area T, under 5 AAC 39.120, Togiak is not, a separate Area Management District, and another amusing allocation operation of 5 AAC 39.222

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost Economic Opportunity in the 2003- 2008 Bristol Bay Sockeye Fishery. The Board is again allocating as Justice Eastaugh made clear in April 21, 2006, that allocation between a single fishery can’t happen. See Letter to Board, General Comments for the Regulatory Meetings 2008-2009 Cycle. Ignored in the Dillingham Cycle, December 2006, see; public written comments.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Area T salmon permit holders who would gain equal access to Area T, as they had for a 100 years.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Area T salmon permit holders who have successfully excluded some Area T permit holders, from their favorite district.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Make all sub-districts super exclusive. Not very popular, for those who like to expand their horizons.

PROPOSED BY: Todd Granger (HQ-09F-075) *******************************************************************************

- 32 -

PROPOSAL 27 - 5 AAC 06.370(d). Registration and reregistration. Eliminate the 48 hour transfer between gear types in the same district as follows:

There is no transfer between fishing gear type as long as the fisherman stays in the same District. Before transferring to another gear type the fisherman must all gear cleaned and fish delivered from prior gear.

ISSUE: To eliminate the 48 hour transfer between gear types in the same district.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued lost opportunity by fishermen.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fisherman who are trying to make a living at fishing.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-080) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 28 - 5 AAC 06.370(d). Registration and reregistration Eliminate 48-hour transfer for gear type in the same SHA as follows:

There is no transfer between fishing gear type as long as the fisherman stays in the same special harvest area. Before transferring to another gear type the fisherman must all gear cleaned and fish delivered from prior gear.

ISSUE: To eliminate the 48 hour transfer between gear types in the same district.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued lost opportunity by fishermen.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fisherman who are trying to make a living at fishing.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-084) *******************************************************************************

- 33 -

PROPOSAL 29 - 5 AAC 39.120(d). Registration of Commercial Fishing Vessels. Allow Area T permit in Alaska Peninsula Area, January 1 – December 31 as follows:

T Bristol Bay Area (5 AAC 06.100) and January 1 through December 31 [JUNE 30], the inter Cinder River [AND] Inter Port Heiden, and Outer Port Heiden Sections of the Alaska Peninsula Area and August 1 through December 31, the outer Cinder River, and [INTER PORT HEIDEN] Ilnik section [AND THAT PROTION OF THE ILNIK SECITON WITHIN ILNIK LAGOON AND ALL WATERS INSIDE THE SEAL ISLANDS] of the Alaska Peninsula Area (5 AAC 09.200)(a)(2), (3)

ISSUE: Area T fisherman not being allowed to participate in a new fishery that was open up, even though it is conducted in front of them. Traditionally Area T fishermen have been able to fish Outer Port Heiden and Ilnik sections until the early 80’s.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More strife between fishermen.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Fish will be able to be caught to take advantage of early markets and they may be less water marked therefore having a higher price.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen wanting less competition in catching fish.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-085) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 30 - 5 AAC 39.120(d). Registration of Commercial Fishing Vessels. Allow Area T permit in Alaska Peninsula Area, January 1 – December 31 as follows:

T Bristol Bay Area (5 AAC 06.100) and January 1 through December 31 [JUNE 30], the Cinder River and Inter Port Heiden Sections of the Alaska Peninsula Area and August 1 through December 31, the [CINDER RIVER, AND INTER PORT HEIDEN SECTION AND] that portion of the Ilnik Section within Ilnik Lagoon and all waters inside the Seal Islands of the Alaska Peninsula Area (5 AAC 09.200)(a)(1), (2), (3)

ISSUE: Lost opportunity to catch Kings in Inter Cinder River in July.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost opportunity for fishermen to take advantage of resource.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

- 34 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen able to catch kings and get a good fresh market price for them.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-086) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 31 - 5 AAC 06.356. General District Salmon Management Plan. Allow fishing in General District as follows:

5 AAC 06.356 General District Salmon Management Plan (a) The purpose of this management plan is to provide for additional harvest opportunities in coordination with other management and allocation plans, maximize quality and harvest, and to provide management guidelines to the department for a commercial salmon fishery in the General District.

(b) For the purpose of this section, the General District consists of waters of the Bristol Bay Area north and east of a line from a point in Cape Constantine at 58 26.14’ N. lat., 158 45.91’W. long. To a point at 58 27.22’ N. lat., 158 36.21’ W. long., to a point at 58 32.30’ N. lat., 158 13.26’ W. long., then following the territorial sea boundary line around Etolin Point and continuing along the territorial sea boundary line to the latitude of Cape Menshikof at 57 28.34’ N. lat., except those waters within, and those waters draining into, the regular districts described in 5 AAC 06.200

(c) From approximately June 1 through June 30, the commissioner may open and close, by emergency order, the General District or portions of the General District as necessary to harvest up to 20 percent of the preseason sockeye salmon forecast for the Bristol Bay Area.

(d) Only drift gillnet gear may be used in the General District. Drift gillnet gear used in the General District may not have a mesh size larger than five and one half inches, and except as allowed in 5 AAC 06.333. may not exceed 150 fathoms in length.

(e) Before operating drift gillnet gear in the General District, a CFEC permit holder shall register under 5 AAC 06.370 in a regular district. (see; tax codes for vessel district registration in case you’re a confused city or borough public officer, and cannot figure out where and how, the General District local fish taxes are distributed) No waiting period applies to movement between the General District and the regular district in which a CFEC permit holder is registered. The 48- hour waiting period for transfers between regular districts specified in 5 AAC 06.370 applies. After initializing a transfer to a new regular district by submitting a transfer form to an authorized representative of the department under 5 AAC 06.370(b). a CFEC permit holder may not operate drift gillnet gear in the General District or any regular district until the 48-hour waiting period under 5 AAC 06.370(b) has expired.

- 35 -

(f) Notwithstanding 5 AAC 06.375. salmon taken in the General District may be landed in the Ugashik, Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak, and Nushagak Districts.

(g) Upon closure of the General District for the season, the catch from the General District shall be attributed to drift gillnets for purposes of the allocation plans in 5 AAC 06.364. 5 AAC 06.365. 5 AAC 06.366. and 5 AAC 06.367. The General District catch applied to a district allocation plan shall be proportional to the registrations for that district.

(h) In this section, “regular district” means one of the five districts described in 5 AAC 06.200.

ISSUE: Reverse the repealed 5 AAC 06.356 General District Salmon Management Plan.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost Economic Opportunity in the 2003- 2008 Bristol Bay Sockeye Fishery. Prepared for: Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation. Categories of Lost Economic Opportunity

Ex-Vessel Value Loss Ex-vessel value is defined as the value of raw fish upon sale by a harvester to a processor. Total ex-vessel value of the foregone harvest is calculated from the foregone harvest estimate, from ADF&G data on average fish size and from Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) value data. For 2008, preliminary ADF&G average value data is used, as publication of CFEC values is several months out. We assume that ex-vessel price of the foregone harvest would have been consistent with ex-vessel price of the actual harvest.

First Wholesale Value Loss First wholesale value is defined as the value upon sale by a seafood processor to a buyer outside their affiliate network. First wholesale value of salmon is compiled and published by Alaska Department of Revenue Tax Division in the Alaska Salmon Price Report. While ex-vessel value is the most commonly used measure of fishery performance, first wholesale value is a much more complete statement of the economic activity associated with Alaska salmon fisheries. First wholesale value reflects the cost of raw fish (ex-vessel value paid to harvesters) and reflects processors’ expenditures on labor, materials, tenders, shoreside goods and services, local utilities, property taxes, etc. In short, wholesale value reflects the full spectrum of local economic activity associated with turning raw salmon into a food product.

Lost Tax Revenues To Municipalities, Boroughs and The State of Alaska There are a variety of taxes in the Bristol Bay region, including assessments on ex-vessel value by local municipalities, by local boroughs, by the State of Alaska and by the Regional Seafood Development Association. The basis for all these taxes is ex-vessel value. Potential (lost) tax revenue is calculated from total ex-vessel value of the foregone harvest and tax rates for the various assessments in each fishing district. It should be noted that half of Fisheries Business Tax (FBT) revenue generated by the state assessment is shared back to the region in which the fish is landed. Potential FBT revenue associated with foregone harvest represents a loss to state revenues and an equal loss to communities and boroughs of the Bristol Bay region…

- 36 -

Ex-Vessel and First Wholesale Value Loss Based on average fish size by year and on region-average prices by year, total ex-vessel value of the 2003 – 2008 foregone harvest was $131 million. Annual average value of the foregone harvest was $21 million, ranging from a low of $13 million in 2003 to a high of $27 million in 2007. Based on the annual product-form composition of the Bristol Bay sockeye pack, first wholesale value of the2003 – 2008 Bristol Bay foregone harvest is estimated at $360 million. Annual average was $60 million, ranging from a low of $42 million in 2003 to a high of $75 million in 2005.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, spreading out a condensed harvest time with fishing in a more orderly fashion, as shown during the 2004 use of this General District Salmon Management Plan, also used in previous years by ADF&G management. Implementing the Northern General District, would also improve the quality as shown in the “Approved” Special Report, by the Department, “Bristol Bay Salmon Management Plan” #80-73-FB March 1980 See Figure 1. Salmon Catch Reporting Zones.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Private and Public person and entities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, shown in 2004 to effectively enforce the Bristol Bay Allocation Plans, 5 AAC 06.356(g).

The 2004 season was the seventh year of managing for a sockeye salmon harvest allocation between drift and set gillnet gear groups in four of the five districts in Bristol Bay. Togiak District is excluded from the allocation plan. The following table lists the allocations adopted by the Board of Fisheries in November of 1997, and the resulting harvests by gear group for the 2004 season. Strategies used to achieve allocation percentages between gear groups includedvarying the amount of fishing time and giving separate gear group openings.

District Drift Net Set Net Set Net Percent of Harvest Percent of Harvest Percent of Harvest (Accounting Period) Allocated/Caught in Allocated/Caught in Allocated/Caught in 2004 2004 2004 by Section Naknek/Kvichak 84% / 81% 16% / 19% Naknek: 8% / 10% a (June 1 to July 17) Kvichak: 8% / 10% Egegik 86% / 86% 14% / 14% Not Applicable (June 1 to July 17) Ugashik 90% / 88% 10% / 12% Not Applicable (June 1 to July 17) Nushagak 74% / 84% 26% / 16% Nushagak: 20% / 15% (June 1 to July 17) WRSHA: 74% / N.A. WRSHA: 26% / N.A. Igushik: 6% / 1% a Naknek/Kvichak set net allocation was only applicable to July 6 when NRSHA went into effect.

- 37 - And the 2008 Allocation Plan Results;

District Drift Net Set Net Set Net Percent of Harvest Percent of Harvest Percent of Harvest (Accounting Period) Allocated/Caught in Allocated/Caught in Allocated/Caught in 2008 2008 2008 by Section Naknek/Kvichak 84% / 81% 16% / 19% Naknek: 8% / 12% a (June 1 to July 17) Kvichak: 8% / 7% Egegik 86% / 85% 14% / 15% Not Applicable (June 1 to July 17) Ugashik 90% / 92% 10% / 8% Not Applicable (June 1 to July 17) Nushagak 74% / 79% 26% / 21% Nushagak: 20% / 16% (June 1 to July 17) WRSHA: 74% / N.A. WRSHA: 26% / N.A. Igushik: 6% / 5% a Naknek/Kvichak set net allocation was only applicable to July 6 when NRSHA went into effect.

As shown by the facts, set net allocation is not a issue.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None available.

PROPOSED BY: Todd Granger (HQ-09F-074) *******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal was originally accepted as agenda change request and scheduled for the March 2009 meeting. It was then tabled to the December 2009 Bristol Bay Finfish meeting for possible adoption.

PROPOSAL 32 – 5 AAC 06.360. Naknek River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Allow 35 fathom set gillnet in NRSHA as follows:

Allow set net fishers to fish an additional 10 fathoms of gear when fishing the Naknek River Special Harvest Area. It is currently 25 fathoms. The request is for an increase to 35 fathoms.

ISSUE: There is an overescapement of stocks when fishing the NRSHA. Recent over escapements may affect future returns to the Naknek River. 1) Addresses future health of Naknek River spawning grounds. 2) Allocation is 3 to 1 ratio with no direct competition among user groups. 3) Over escapement of this magnitude benefits neither river health of the economic health of fishermen. Recent over escapements may have already stated adverse effects on future salmon runs and the sustainability of this resource. We setnetters are asking for the same consideration and treatment given to the drift gillnet fleet.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It may affect the health of Naknek River spawning grounds and create a continued loss of economic opportunity to fisherman.

- 38 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set net fishermen in the NRSHA and rural Alaskans living in local villages.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody, as there is no direct competition with other user groups.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 25 fathom increase, but that would be too much gear.

PROPOSED BY: Donald Mack (HQ-09F-026, SC-09F-011) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 33 - 5 AAC 06.360. Naknek River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Require removal of all setnet gear during drift gillnet periods in NRSHA as follows:

When a drift net opening is occurring, all setnet buoys and anchors and running lines will be removed.

ISSUE: Remove all setnet buoys and anchors and all other hazards to navigation that are more than 25 fathoms off shore when the driftnetters are fishing in the Naknek River Special Harvest Area.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drift netters will lose thousands of dollars in nets and be unable to harvest their share effectively.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, better fish quality will result from a driftnet fishery with less obstacles that require towing to miss them.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Driftnet fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association (HQ-09F-158) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 34 - 5 AAC 06.360. Naknek River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Change NRSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet as follows:

Reinstate the 84% harvest to the driftnet gear group.

- 39 - ISSUE: The unfair allocation of sockeye in the Naknek River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area (NRSHA).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Driftnet fishermen will not receive their historic levels of harvest.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, driftnet fishers are more able to chill at the point of harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Driftnet fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Setnet fishers.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association (HQ-09F-159) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 35 - 5 AAC 06.373. Alagnak River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Change ARSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet as follows:

When the Naknek-Kvichak District is closed and there is a harvestable surplus of sockeye salmon in the Alagnak River Special Harvest Area (ARSHA), the distribution of the harvestable surplus will be as follows: (A) drift gillnet – 84 percent; and (B) set gillnet – 16 percent. Once the minimum escapement goal for the ARSHA is met, both gear groups may fish at the same time in an effort to achieve the allocation percentages.

ISSUE: Change the allocation plan in the Alagnak River Sockeye Special Harvest Area Management Plan to have the same allocation as in the Naknek-Kvichak District.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The allocation agreement from the 1997 Bristol Bay Board of Fish meeting that was based on the 20 year set and drift gillnet catch averages and was intended to include all fish harvested commercially by other gear groups. The Alagnak River Sockeye Special Harvest Area which is defined to be within the Naknek-Kvichak District does not have the same allocation.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen who made the 1997 allocation agreement; the fish that otherwise would be caught in the Naknek-Kvichak District, but for conservation of the Kvichak River sockeye salmon run, are caught in the ARSHA will be allocated as if they were caught in the Naknek-Kvichak District.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

- 40 -

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Kurt Johnson (HQ-09F-161) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 36 - 5 AAC 06.373. Alagnak River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Change ARSHA allocation to 84% drift and 16% set gillnet as follows:

Reinstate the 84% harvest to the driftnet gear group.

ISSUE: The unfair allocation of sockeye in the Alagnak River Special Harvest Area (ARSHA).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Driftnet fishermen will not receive their historic levels of harvest.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, driftnet fishers are more able to chill at the point of harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Driftnet fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Setnet fishers.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association (HQ-09F-165) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 37 - 5 AAC 06.365. Egegik District Commercial Set and Drift Gillnet Sockeye Salmon Fisheries Management and Allocation Plan. Allow concurrent openings for drift and set gillnet with offset start times as follows:

Setnet and drift fishermen fish concurrently with 15 to 30 minutes earlier opening for either gear type if needed depending on allocation numbers as intended by the Board of Fish at the inception of the Egegik Allocation Plan.

ISSUE: The Egegik Allocation Plan is not working as originally intended. Setnet and drift fishermen not fishing concurrently.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Setnet fishermen will lose economic opportunity.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It would allow a more steady distribution of fish to the processors.

- 41 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Both gear types.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Kim Rice (HQ-09F-091) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 39 - 5 AAC 06.365. Egegik District Commercial Set and Drift Gillnet Sockeye Salmon Fisheries Management and Allocation Plan. Require removal of all set gillnet gear when closed to fishing as follows:

- 42 -

5 AAC 06.365 (g) In the set gillnet fishery, all set gillnet fishing gear, including anchors and buoys, shall be removed during set gillnet closures, consistent with Alaska Statute 16.10.055.

ISSUE: Setnet gear still in the navigable fishing waters of the Egegik district during closed fishing periods.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The current situation allows dangerous hindrances to navigation, jeopardizing both lives and equipment. Commercial fishing vessels and gear will continue to be willfully and recklessly damaged by disregarding to the consequences.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, this regulation will also greatly improve quality by alleviating power- rolling situations

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All navigators will benefit. Set and drift gillnetters will both benefit from a more responsive manageable fishery.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some set gillnetters will need to reconfigure their operations in order to operate in this manner of consequential responsibility. Hydraulic power packs for pulling anchors are readily available and affordable.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Larry Christensen (HQ-09F-110) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 40 - 5 AAC 06.390. Special drift gillnet commercial fishing periods in the Nushagak District. Delete sunset clause for the dude fishing regulation as follows:

Delete the following paragraph: [(f) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECITON DO NOT APPLY AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2009.]

ISSUE: Expiration of the Special Drift Gillnet Commercial Fishing Periods in the Nushagak District.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A rural economic opportunity will be lost.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local entrepreneurs, businesses catering to the visitor industry and the City of Dillingham.

- 43 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Fritz Johnson (SW-09F-021) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 41 - 5 AAC 06.390. Special drift gillnet commercial fishing periods in the Nushagak District. Extend fishing season for dude fishery as follows:

Change paragraph (b) to read: From June 1 [JULY 1] through September 30, the commissioner may, by emergency order…

ISSUE: Timing of the special drift gillnet commercial fishing periods in the Nushagak District is too restrictive.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A fledgling rural economic opportunity will be needlessly restricted.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The “product,” in this case, is a visitor experience which would be improved by lengthening the season and thereby increasing the opportunities to access it.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local entrepreneurs, businesses catering to the visitor industry and the City of Dillingham.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A June 15 or other opening date. But fish do appear earlier, as do potential clients.

PROPOSED BY: Fritz Johnson (SW-09F-022) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 42 - 5 AAC 06.358. Wood River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Open WRSHA when Wood River escapement is projected over 700,000 as follows:

(c) The commissioner may open, by emergency order, the Wood River Special Harvest Area (1) when the department projects that the sockeye salmon escapement into the Wood River will exceed 700,000 fish and as follows: (E) the one gear-type (setnet or drift) that is behind in allocation (5 AAC 06.367) shall be allowed to fish

ISSUE: The unharvested surplus of sockeye salmon escaping into the Wood River in the Nushagak District of Bristol Bay.

- 44 -

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sockeye will continue to go unharvested each year, resulting in lost income to fishers of the Nushagak District.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not specifically, but due to the proximity of the SnoPac Products processing facility on the Wood River, some fish may be delivered in a more timely manner, resulting in a higher quality product.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishers and processors of the Nushagak District. Not only those able to participate in the Wood River Special Harvest Area fishery, but those fishing in the rest of the district, due to less competition from those fishing in the Wood River.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Tom Rollman Jr. and Dylan Braund (HQ-09F-093) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 43 - 5 AAC 06.358. Wood River Sockeye Salmon Special Harvest Area Management Plan. Allow June drift periods in WRSHA if escapement is over 100,000 as follows:

Change (a) to include the protection of Nushagak River Chinook salmon. Allow drift gillnet only openings in the Wood River between June 20 and June 30 only if Wood River sockeye escapement has exceeded 100,000 and Nushagak Chinook escapement is behind the expected escapement. Set gillnet fishing would still occur in the regular district as that gear type doesn’t harvest many Chinook.

ISSUE: Exploitation of Chinook salmon incidentally during sockeye salmon fishing.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In some circumstances a large “bycatch” of Chinook salmon can occur when the Chinook run is weak and or late.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Chinook salmon resource and the subsistence users that rely on it would benefit.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? There are certainly tradeoffs made by all users in this case but it is for the greater long term sustainability of the resource.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Make the management plan specifically allow for conservation decisions to be made for Chinook salmon.

- 45 -

PROPOSED BY: Rod Williams (SW-09F-001) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 44 - 5 AAC 06.200. Fishing Districts, Subdistrict and Sections. Modify southern boundary of Naknek/Kvichak District as follows:

The new regulation would establish a new GPS coordinate for the southern terminus of the Naknek section west line that would intersect with the Naknek/Kvichak southern boundary line. Thereby creating one southern boundary line for both districts.

ISSUE: Update the GPS coordinates for the southern point of the Naknek section west line boundary, so that this line intersects with the southern boundary line of the Naknek/Kvichak district.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? As it is currently plotted, the southern terminus of the Naknek section west boundary line falls substantially short of intersecting with the “Johnson Hill Line” or the south boundary of the Naknek/Kvichak section. I feel that it was the intention of previous Boards that this line should terminate and intersect with the Johnson Hill Line; however in the switch from Loran C to GPS, the southern terminus of the line falls short of that intersection. Thus requiring two sets of southern district boundaries; one for the Naknek Section and one for the Naknek/Kvichak section. This is a simple housekeeping measure that can mitigate this confusion and establish one southern district boundary line instead of two. (The historical Loran C coordinates establishing this intersection were 32430 X 45070). (The southern line of the Naknek and the Naknek/Kvichak boundary was Loran C 32430).

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not Applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The entire driftnet gill fleet.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Personal appeal to both ADF&G staff and ADF&G Protection provided little relief. Since these boundaries have been in use since 2001, the opportunity for administrative relief has passed, thereby requiring Board of Fisheries action.

PROPOSED BY: Warren Gibbons (HQ-09F-079) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 45 - 5 AAC 06.200. Fishing districts, subdistricts, and sections. Modify Snake River Section boundary follows:

(a)(2) Snake River Section: All waters from 58° 52.90’ N. lat. 158° 43.30’ W. long. 58° 44.80’ N. lat. 158° 41.50’ W. long. to 58° 46.13’ N. lat. 158° 46.65’ W. long. [58° 45.80’ N. LAT. 158° 46.65’ W. LONG].

- 46 -

ISSUE: The boundary lines on the north side of the Igushik Section 5 AAC 06.200(a)(1) and the south side of the Snake River Section 5 AAC 06.200(a)(2) have slight differences, resulting in an overlap of the two sections. The entire Snake River Section is closed by regulation 5 AAC 06.350(a)(3). Closed waters. As a result, the overlapped area could be interpreted as closed waters when the Igushik Section is open to commercial fishing. Merging these boundaries into a single shared boundary will eliminate the problem.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The same boundary line will continue to have two different definitions, creating confusion among drift gillnet permit holders and potential enforcement issues.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift gillnet permit holders that fish in the Nushagak District.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-127) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 46 - 5 AAC 06.320. Fishing periods. Modify fishing periods for Kulukak Section as follows:

(a)(2) in the Kulukak Section from 9:00 a.m. Monday to 9:00 p.m. Wednesday [9:00 A.M. THURSDAY];

ISSUE: Since at least 1996, the Kulukak Section has been closed by emergency order earlier than the regulatory weekly closure at 9:00 a.m. Thursday to protect the Kulukak and Kanik rivers, where there are no inseason salmon enumeration projects. Early season king salmon conservation, precautionary management to protect discrete salmon stocks, and potential interception of salmon bound for the Togiak River Section have led to regular emergency orders to close weekly fishing after 48 or 60 hours of fishing.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Maintaining the current schedule will lead to continued early closures by emergency order that create processor and permit holder uncertainty as to how much fishing time will be allowed.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Industry participants will benefit by having a better idea of how much fishing time will be allowed, improving their ability to estimate and plan operations.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

- 47 - PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-128) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 47 - 5 AAC 06.375(a). Landing requirements. Change landing requirements in Nushagak District as follows:

Change (a) all salmon must…no vessel used to take salmon may have salmon on board when more than 1 mile outside the district from which the salmon were taken or ½ mile inside the Snake River section of the Nushagak District. When outside a district…subsection when necessary.

ISSUE: Illegal fishing inside the Snake River Section which is closed waters.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It will be difficult to prosecute a case of someone fishing inside the Snake River Section unless they are caught actually fishing. This change would make it illegal to be over ½ mile inside the Snake River Section with fish onboard.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All permit holders that fish legally.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Permit holders that fish illegally in the Snake River Section.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Remove Snake River Section from the definition of the Nushagak District.

PROPOSED BY: Nushagak AC (SW-09F-006) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 48 - 5 AAC 06.320. Fishing Periods. Modify fishing periods in the Ugashik District as follows:

5 AAC 06.320. Fishing Periods. … (c) In the Naknek-Kvichak, Egegik, and Ugashik districts, … (2) After 9:00 a.m. July 17, salmon may only be taken from 9:00 a.m. Monday until 9:00 a.m. Friday, except as specified for the (A) Egegik District in 5 AAC 06.359(f); (B) Naknek-Kvichak District in 5 AAC 06.360(g); and (C) Ugashik District from 9:00 a.m. Thursday to 9:00 a.m. Monday and in 5 AAC 06.366(d)(4) Fisherman fishing Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak districts, in Bristol Bay, may not fish in Ugashik or Cinder River in the same week.

- 48 - ISSUE: The existing weekly fishing periods Monday through Friday morning do not work well with shipping fish out by air.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost fishing opportunity and lost revenue from the fish.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Increase quality of kings and silvers as they can get to market in a timelier manor.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-082) *******************************************************************************

- 49 -

ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM FINFISH PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL 49 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the Tanana River Area. Update the Tanana River Management Area stocked waters list as follows:

This proposal updates the Tanana River Management Area stocked waters list.

(c)(29) in stocked waters, the bag, possession, and size limit for rainbow trout, Arctic char/Dolly Varden, landlocked salmon, and Arctic grayling is 10 of all stocked species combined, of which no more than one fish may be 18 inches or greater in length; for the purposes of this paragraph "stocked waters" include Backdown Lake, Ballaine Lake, Bathing Beauty Pond, Bear Lake, [BIG BEAR LAKE], Big "D" Pond, Big Lake, Birch Lake, Bluff Cabin Lake, Bolio Lake, Brodie Lake, Bullwinkle Lake, Chena Lake, Chet Lake, CHSR 25.0 Mile Pit, CHSR 30.0 Mile Pit, CHSR 45.5 Mile Pit, CHSR 47.9 Mile Pit, Coal Mine Road #5, Craig Lake, Crystal Lake, Dick's Pond, Doc Lake, Donna Lake, [FIREBREAK LAKE], Forest Lake, Four Mile Lake, Fourteen Mile Lake, Geskakmina Lake, Ghost Lake, Grayling Lake, Hidden Lake (Eielsen Air Force Base), Hidden Lake (Tetlin NWR.), Horseshoe Lake, "J" Lake, Jan Lake, Johnson R. #1 Pit, Kenna Lake, Ken's Pond, Kids Fishing Pond, Kimberly Lake, Last Lake, [LES' LAKE], Lisa Lake, [LITTLE BEAR LAKE], Little Donna Lake, Little Lost Lake, Long Pond, Lost Lake, Luke Lake, Lundgren Pond, Manchu Lake, Mark Lake, Meadows Rd. # 1, Meadows Rd. # 2, Meadows Rd. # 3, Meadows Rd. # 4, Meadows Rd. # 5, Meadows Rd. # 6, Monterey Lake, Moose Lake, [MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE], Mullins Pit, Nenana City Pond, Nickel Lake, No Mercy Lake, Nordale # 2, North Chena Pond, North Pole Pond, North Twin Lake, Olnes Pond, Otto Lake, Parks 261 Pond, Paul's Pond, Piledriver Slough, Polaris Lake, Quartz Lake, Rangeview Lake, Rapids Lake, Richardson Hwy. 28 M. Pit, Richardson Hwy. 31 M. Pit, Richardson Hwy. 81 Mile Pit, Robertson Lake #2, Rockhound Lake, Round Pond, [SANSING LAKE], Shaw Pond, Sheefish Lake, Silver Lake (aka Mosquito Creek Lake), Sirlin Drive Pond, South Johnson Lake, South Twin Lake, Square Lake, Steese Hwy. 29.5 Mile Pit, Steese Hwy. 31.6 Mile Pit, Steese Hwy. 33.5 Mile Pit, Steese Hwy. 34.6 Mile Pit, Steese Hwy. 35.8 Mile Pit, Steese Hwy. 36.6 Mile Pit, [STEESE HWY. 120.0 MILE PIT], Stringer Rd. Pond, Triangle Lake, Tschute Lake, Wainwright #6, Weasel Lake, West Iksgiza Lake, West Pond, Z Pit (Chena Floodway);

ISSUE: This is a housekeeping proposal. In conjunction with the Board of Fisheries cycle, the department reviews the stocked waters list for the various management areas. Stocked waters are removed from the stocked waters list due to a loss of public access, poor fish growth or survival, or insufficient fishing effort. As new waters are identified and included in the stocking plan they are added to the list. The proposed language will update the Tanana River Area stocked waters list.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The list of stocked waters will not be correct.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

- 50 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, by having up-to-date regulations.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-142) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 50 - 5 AAC 69.155. North Slope Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan, 5 AAC 70.055 Northwestern Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan, 5 AAC 71.055 Kuskokwim-Goodnews Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan, 5 AAC 73.055 Yukon River Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan, and 5 AAC 74.055 Tanana River Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan. Align Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plans with area regulations as follows:

5 AAC 69.155. North Slope Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan.

(d) Regional management approach. Under the regional management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited artificial lures and the bag and possession limit is five fish. The season is open year round, however there are fisheries where catch-and-release fishing is imposed during part or all of the spawning period from April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. (e) Conservative management approach. Under the conservative management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited-single-hook artificial lures. The bag and possession limit is two fish. The fishing season is open year round, and is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the spawning period of April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. The use of size limits does apply to certain stocks and fisheries under this approach. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed. (g) Special management approach. Under the special management approach, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures and unbaited single-hook artificial flies may be used. Size limits may be imposed for certain fisheries and may include trophy designation, which is a fish 18 inches or greater in length. The bag limit is one fish, except that a fishery may be restricted to catch-and- release fishing, or closed. Single-hook waters may be established. The fishing season is open year round, but fishing is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31 spawning period. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the same water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed.

5 AAC 70.055. Northwestern Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan.

- 51 - (e) Conservative management approach. Under the conservative management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited-single-hook artificial lures. The bag and possession limit is two fish. The fishing season is open year round, and is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the spawning period of April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. The use of size limits does apply to certain stocks and fisheries under this approach. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed. (h) Special management approach. Under the special management approach, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures and unbaited single-hook artificial flies may be used. Size limits may be imposed for certain fisheries and may include trophy designation, which is a fish 18 inches or greater in length. The bag limit is one fish, except that a fishery may be restricted to catch-and- release fishing, or closed. Single-hook waters may be established. The fishing season is open year round, but fishing is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31 spawning period. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the same water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed.

5 AAC 71.055. Kuskokwim – Goodnews Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan.

(d) Regional management approach. Under the regional management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited artificial lures and the bag and possession limit is five fish. The season is open year round, however there are fisheries where catch-and-release fishing is imposed during part or all of the spawning period from April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. (e) Conservative management approach. Under the conservative management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited-single-hook artificial lures. The bag and possession limit is two fish. The fishing season is open year round, and is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the spawning period of April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. The use of size limits does apply to certain stocks and fisheries under this approach. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed. (g) The department shall manage the Aniak River drainage, Arolik River drainage, Holitna River, Kanektok River, and Goodnews River under the conservative management approach. (h) Special management approach. Under the special management approach, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures and unbaited single-hook artificial flies may be used. Size limits may be imposed for certain fisheries and may include trophy designation, which is a fish 18 inches or greater in length. The bag limit is one fish, except that a fishery may be restricted to catch-and- release fishing, or closed. Single-hook waters may be established. The fishing season is open year round, but fishing is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31 spawning period. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the same water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed.

5 AAC 73.055. Yukon River Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan.

- 52 - (e) Conservative management approach. Under the conservative management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited-single-hook artificial lures. The bag and possession limit is two fish. The fishing season is open year round, and is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the spawning period of April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. The use of size limits does apply to certain stocks and fisheries under this approach. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed. (g) Special management approach. Under the special management approach, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures and unbaited single-hook artificial flies may be used. Size limits may be imposed for certain fisheries and may include trophy designation, which is a fish 18 inches or greater in length. The bag limit is one fish, except that a fishery may be restricted to catch-and- release fishing, or closed. Single-hook waters may be established. The fishing season is open year round, but fishing is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31 spawning period. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the same water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed.

5 AAC 74.055. Tanana River Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan.

(d) Regional management approach. Under the regional management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited artificial lures and the bag and possession limit is five fish. The season is open year round, however there are fisheries where catch-and-release fishing is imposed during part or all of the spawning period from April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. (e) Conservative management approach. Under the conservative management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited-single-hook artificial lures. The bag and possession limit is two fish. The fishing season is open year round, and is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the spawning period of April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31. The use of size limits does apply to certain stocks and fisheries under this approach. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed. (g) The department shall manage the Five-Mile Clearwater [RIVER] Creek and the Tok River drainage under the conservative management approach. (h) Special management approach. Under the special management approach, only unbaited single-hook artificial lures and unbaited single-hook artificial flies may be used. Size limits may be imposed for certain fisheries and may include trophy designation, which is a fish 18 inches or greater in length. The bag limit is one fish, except that a fishery may be restricted to catch-and- release fishing, or closed. Single-hook waters may be established. The fishing season is open year round, but fishing is restricted to catch-and-release fishing during the April 1 through [MAY 30] May 31 spawning period. If a fishery for a species other than Arctic grayling occurs in the same water body, the use of larger multiple hooks and bait on larger single and multiple hooks is allowed.

ISSUE: The Board of Fisheries adopted the Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan (5 AAC 70.055) at the January 2004 meeting. The intent of the plan was to provide protection to spawning Arctic grayling over the two month period during which spawning occurs, April 1 – May 31. Inadvertently, the date of May 30 instead of May 31 was included in the plan. In specific area regulations, April 1 – May 31 is listed as the period for a catch-and-release restriction in four different systems. This proposal would align the management plan dates with those in area

- 53 - regulations. In addition, this proposal will add two drainages (Arolik River in the Kuskokwim- Goodnews Area and the Tok River in the Tanana River Area) whose regulations fall under the conservative management approach and correct the reference for Five-Mile Clearwater Creek.

The department views this as a housekeeping proposal.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The specific area regulation dates for the catch-and-release spawning restriction will deviate by one day in relation to the dates specified in the management plan.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishery managers, and the public will benefit from clear, concise regulations and management plans.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-133) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 51 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Area. Align Tanana River regulations with the Wild Arctic Grayling Plan as follows:

This proposal brings several rivers in the Tanana River Management Area into compliance with the Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan’s regional management approach by removing spawning closures, length, and gear restrictions in these systems.

(c)(2) in the Chatanika River and its tributaries, [(B) ARCTIC GRAYLING MAY BE TAKEN FROM (I) JUNE 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF FIVE FISH, 12 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH; ALL ARCTIC GRAYLING CAUGHT THAT ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN LENGTH MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY; (II) APRIL 1 THROUGH MAY 31, BY CATCH AND RELEASE FISHING ONLY;]

(d)(2) [FROM APRIL 1 THOUGH MAY 31,] in the Chatanika River and its tributaries [UPSTREAM FROM AN ADF&G REGULATORY MARKER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE UPSTREAM FROM THE ELLIOTT HIGHWAY BRIDGE,] only unbaited [SINGLE-HOOK], artificial lures may be used, except that bait may be used only on hooks with a gap size larger than three-quarters of an inch.

- 54 - [(c)(19) IN THE RICHARDSON CLEARWATER DRAINAGE, ARCTIC GRAYLING MAY BE TAKEN FROM (A) APRIL 1 THROUGH MAY 31, BY CATCH AND RELEASE FISHING ONLY; (B) JUNE 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF FIVE FISH, 12 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH; ALL ARCTIC GRAYLING CAUGHT THAT ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN LENGTH MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY;]

(c)(20) in the Salcha River and its tributaries, [(B) ARCTIC GRAYLING MAY BE TAKEN FROM (I) APRIL 1 THROUGH MAY 31, BY CATCH AND RELEASE FISHING ONLY; (II) JUNE 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF FIVE FISH, 12 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH; ALL ARCTIC GRAYLING CAUGHT THAT ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN LENGTH MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY;]

(c)(21) in the Shaw Creek drainage and its tributaries, Arctic grayling may be taken from [(A)] April 1 through May 31, by catch and release fishing only; [(B) JUNE 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF FIVE FISH, 12 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH; ALL ARCTIC GRAYLING CAUGHT THAT ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN LENGTH MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY;]

(c)(23) in the Tanana River and its tributaries within a two-mile radius of its confluence with Shaw Creek, Arctic grayling may be taken from [(A)] April 1 through May 31, by catch and release fishing only; [(B) JUNE 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF FIVE FISH, 12 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH; ALL ARCTIC GRAYLING CAUGHT THAT ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN LENGTH MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY;]

ISSUE: The Board of Fisheries adopted the Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan (WAGMP)( 5 AAC 70.055) for the AYK region in 2004. The plan has three management approaches: regional, conservative, and special. The Chatanika, Richardson Clearwater, and Salcha Rivers; and Shaw Creek were classified under the regional management approach. Regulations under the WAGMP regional management approach are defined as: “Under the regional management approach, sport anglers may use baited or unbaited artificial lures and the bag and possession limit is five fish. The season is open year round, however there are fisheries where catch-and-release is imposed during part or all of the spawning period from April 1 through May 30.”

This proposal does three things which will align these areas with the WAGMP regional management approach: 1) it removes the Arctic grayling size restrictions on all four rivers and that portion of the Tanana River near the mouth of Shaw Creek; 2) it removes the Arctic grayling spawning restrictions on the Chatanika, Richardson Clearwater, and Salcha rivers; 3) it retains the Arctic grayling spawning restriction for Shaw Creek and that portion of the Tanana near Shaw

- 55 - Creek because this is a critical spawning area for Arctic grayling from several systems, and 4) it modifies the gear regulations on the Chatanika River.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations for these rivers will continue to be inconsistent with the WAGMP regional regulations. Harvest opportunity will continue to be restricted unnecessarily.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, anglers will have increased opportunity to harvest Arctic grayling from several rivers in the Tanana River Management Area.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers who harvest, or would like to harvest, Arctic grayling in the Tanana River Management Area.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-141) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 52 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Area. Clarify regulations for Chena Slough (Badger Slough) as follows:

This proposal clarifies the regulations for Chena Slough (aka Badger Slough) a tributary of the Chena River.

(d) (XX) in Chena Slough (also known as Badger Slough) only one single-hook artificial lure may be used;

ISSUE: Sport anglers often do not realize that Chena Slough (aka Badger Slough) is part of the Chena River because the slough is occasionally cut off from the river due to low water levels and seasonal dewatering of the slough. Because of this anglers often attempt to harvest Arctic grayling from the slough with multi-hook lures, when in fact the slough is catch-and-release, single-hook artificial lure only, just like the remainder of the lower Chena River.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport anglers may continue to be confused.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Arctic grayling will not be inadvertently harvested from a population that is intended to be part of a catch-and-release fishery.

- 56 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers through reduced confusion in the fishing regulations.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-138) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 53 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Area. Clarify single-hook regulations in the Tanana River drainage as follows:

This proposal clarifies the gear regulations in the water bodies in which there are either catch- and-release regulations or limited bag and possession regulations for Arctic grayling.

(d)(5) in the Chena River and its tributaries, [(A) DOWNSTREAM OF THE CHENA RIVER DAM,] (i) only one unbaited single-hook, artificial lure may be used, except that a treble hook with a gap between hook and shank of one-half inch or greater may be used; (ii) bait may be used only on a single hook with a gap size larger than three-quarters of an inch; [(B) UPSTREAM FROM THE CHENA RIVER DAM, ONLY UNBAITED, SINGLE HOOK, ARTIFICIAL LURES MAY BE USED;] (d)(6) in the Delta Clearwater River drainage, including the Clearwater Lake drainage, from (A) January 1 through August 31, only one unbaited, single-hook, artificial lure[S] may be used; (d)(8) in Five-Mile Clearwater Creek, from (A) January 1 through August 31, only one unbaited, single-hook, artificial lure[S] may be used; (d)(13) in Piledriver Slough upstream from its confluence with Moose Creek, only one unbaited, single hook, artificial lure[S] may be used; (d)(16) in Shaw Creek, (A) [UPSTREAM FROM THE RICHARDSON HIGHWAY BRIDGE,] only one unbaited, single-hook, artificial lure[S] may be used; (d) (XX) in the Tok River drainage, only one unbaited, single-hook, artificial lure may be used;

ISSUE: The Chena and Tok Rivers, Shaw Creek, and Piledriver Slough Arctic grayling fisheries are managed conservatively to maintain current population characteristics or levels, or rebuild the population to previous population characteristics or levels. The Delta Clearwater River and Five- Mile Clearwater Creek are managed conservatively in order to maintain a high quality Arctic grayling fishing experience (a higher percentage of large fish). Under the conservative management approach of the Tanana River Area Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan (5 AAC 74.055) it is

- 57 - appropriate to restrict gear to one single-hook, artificial lure rather than allowing two single hooks or artificial flies per line.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport anglers will continue to be allowed to use two single hooks or two flies in systems where there are conservation or other management concerns for Arctic grayling.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. This will maintain the Arctic grayling management goals in these systems.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers who may be confused about what “single-hook” means.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Sport anglers who prefer to use two single hooks or two flies.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-143) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 54 - 5 AAC 70.011. Seasons and bag, possession, and size limits for the Northwestern Area. Open the Nome River to catch-and-release fishing for Arctic grayling as follows:

(c)(6) In the Nome River drainage, sport fishing for (B) Arctic grayling is catch-and-release only for the entire year [CLOSED].

ISSUE: The Nome River is located near the town of Nome and is the area’s most popular fishing destination for several species. However, sport fishing for Arctic grayling in the Nome River has been closed since 1992 due to low abundances resulting from several years of high harvests. In 2004, the Board of Fisheries adopted the Wild Arctic Grayling Management Plan (5 AAC 70.055), in which the Nome River was designated to be managed under the special management approach, a designation given to Arctic grayling fisheries exhibiting particular conservation, biological, or restoration issues. The Department’s management objective for the Nome River Arctic grayling population stipulates that once the abundance of Arctic grayling has reached 2,000 fish greater than 15 inches, the population can support a catch-and-release fishery. If the stock assessment in 2009 indicates the abundance of Arctic grayling in the Nome River is less than 2,000 fish greater than 15 inches the department will withdraw support for this proposal.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport fishing opportunity for those who like to catch-and-release Arctic grayling close to Nome remains low.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

- 58 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers wanting to catch-and-release Arctic grayling close to Nome.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-135) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 56 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Area. Move sport fishing regulatory boundary in the Chatanika River as follows:

This proposal moves a regulatory boundary in the Chatanika River one mile downstream to a more recognizable location.

5 AAC 74.010(c)(2)(A) sport fishing for salmon is closed upstream of the upstream edge of the [FROM AN ADF&G REGULATORY MARKER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE UPSTREAM FROM THE] Elliott Highway bridge;

5 AAC 74.010(c)(2)(C) whitefish except least cisco may be taken from

(ii) May 1 through September 30, downstream [FROM AN ADF&G REGULATORY MARKER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE UPSTREAM] from the upstream edge of the Elliott Highway Bridge, with a bag and possession limit of five fish, with no size limit;

5 AAC 74.010(d)(2) from April 1 through May 31, in the Chatanika River and its tributaries [UPSTREAM FROM AN ADF&G REGULATORY MARKER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE] upstream of the upstream edge of [FROM] the Elliott Highway Bridge, only unbaited single-hook, artificial lures may be used;

ISSUE The Elliott Highway Bridge provides a more permanent and recognizable boundary marker, rather than an easily removed, destroyed or obscured regulatory sign. The current regulatory boundary on the Chatanika River (an ADF&G marker located one mile upstream from the Elliott Hwy Bridge) was originally put in place for the sport whitefish spear fishery that occurred in the area through 1993. Other regulations used this point as a reference in order to maintain consistency. The sport whitefish spear fishery is closed by regulation and the personal use whitefish spear fishery occurs in a different location.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Anglers may inadvertently fish illegally in an unauthorized location if the ADF&G sign is missing, destroyed, or obscured by vegetation.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers by providing a permanent, more visible regulatory boundary.

- 60 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Any sport anglers who fish for salmon or use multiple hooks in the one mile section between the Elliott Highway Bridge and current location of the regulatory marker.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-136) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 57 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Area. Amend whitefish sport bag limits in the Chatanika River as follows:

This proposal would repeal the exceptions to the general bag and possession limits and seasonal closures for whitefish in the Chatanika River.

[(c)(2)(C) WHITEFISH EXCEPT LEAST CISCO MAY BE TAKEN FROM (i) MAY 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CHATANIKA RIVER DRAINAGE, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF 5 FISH, WITH NO SIZE LIMIT; (ii) MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, DOWNSTREAM OF AN FROM AN ADF&G REGULATORY MARKER LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE UPSTREAM FROM THE ELLIOTT HIGHWAY BRIDGE, WITH A BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT OF 5 FISH, WITH NO SIZE LIMIT;]

ISSUE: The current language is confusing as it allows anglers to fish for whitefish throughout the Chatanika River drainage from May 1 – August 31, in the portion of the river downstream of a regulatory marker from Sept 1 – 30, and then the sport fishery is closed in the entire river from October 1 through April 30. This will simplify sport fishing regulations and liberalize harvest opportunity for whitefish in the Chatanika River.

In 2007, the board authorized a personal use spear fishery for whitefish in that portion of the Chatanika River within the Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area. This personal use spear fishery occurs where sport fishing is currently closed from October 1 – April 30. This regulatory change will not affect the personal use spear fishery.

There is not a conservation concern in opening the hook and line sport fishery for whitefish year round, as whitefish are difficult to harvest using hook and line gear compared to personal use gear (spear). From 2003-07, the catch and harvest of whitefish in the Chatanika River by hook and line averaged 194 and 60 fish, respectively. This change will reduce the complexity of the regulations for the Chatanika River as the sport fishing regulations for whitefish will revert back to the area- wide season and bag limits.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport anglers who wish to harvest whitefish after September 30 with rod and reel will continue to be restricted.

- 61 -

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers who desire to catch whitefish throughout the year using rod and reel gear in the Chatanika River.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-137) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 58 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Management Area. Amend bait restrictions in Fielding Lake as follows:

Modify the regulations concerning Fielding Lake as follows: (d) special provisions (B) (7) In Fielding Lake (A) set lines may not be used; (B) Only 1 single hook, artificial lure may be used. (C) April 1- October 31. bait may not be used. (D) November 1-March 31, Bait may be used.

ISSUE: Maintaining fishing opportunities while addressing harvesting concerns. Fish and Game has implemented a no bait restriction at Fielding Lake. Harvest can be reduced by discontinuing bait during the open water season and allowing bait during a portion of the winter months.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If bait is not allowed during the winter season this would essentially result in a de-facto closure for burbot and lake trout, as the odds of catching a trout or burbot while jigging through the ice without bait are slim to none. Recent regulations at nearby Summit and Paxson lakes allow bait during a portion of the winter. My proposal disallowing bait during summer/fall will reduce harvest because of the methods used, but summer lake trout can still be caught with un-baited lures. Allowing bait between November 1 and March 31 will allow some winter harvest but eliminate the most active month which is April, when there is the most ice fishing pressure due to nice weather. While the Lake Trout Management Plan is an admirable attempt to provide lake trout management, it does not lend itself to innovative solutions, which are needed in this case to still provide a minimum level of fishing opportunities for both burbot and lake trout.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. This proposal reduces harvest by limiting harvest to a limited period during winter months while retaining some harvest opportunities for fishermen. The resource

- 62 - will still continue to grow in numbers and size and meet Lake trout management principles for this area without eliminating fishing opportunities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dedicated fishermen that are concerned about the quality and value of the resource while retaining fishing opportunities for sport fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A.) Catch and release for lake trout. This would unnecessarily limit harvest opportunities, but would be an acceptable winter alternative. B.) No bait year round. This would unfairly discriminate against fishermen that enjoy ice fishing. No bait basically eliminates the potential to catch burbot or lake trout in winter. It would be inconsistent with adopted regs in nearby lakes such as Summit and Paxson.

PROPOSED BY: Ethan Birkholz (HQ-09F-038) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 59 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Management Area. Allow for only one closely attended line in Fielding Lake as follows:

(A) Only one closely tended line may be used.

ISSUE: Maintaining fishing opportunities while addressing harvesting concerns. Fish and Game has implemented a no bait restriction at Fielding Lake. I would prefer to see harvest reduced by a combination of limiting bait to a portion of the winter months and limiting the number of tended lines. This proposal specifically calls for using only one tended line to further limit harvest potential as another alternative that should be considered to a no bait restriction. Using only one tended line during the winter season would not cut the potential for catching fish in half since the active line sees the most action. But it would reduce harvest and mortality as studies have shown a strong correlation with one tended line using active jigging techniques and significantly reduce mortality as a result.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. This proposal reduces mortality and harvest by limiting methods and means by only allowing one tended line to limit harvest methods during winter months while retaining fair and reasonable harvest opportunities for fishermen.

- 63 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Dedicated fishermen that are concerned about the quality and value of the resource while retaining fishing opportunities for sport fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A) Catch and release for lake trout. This would unnecessarily limit harvest opportunities, but would be an acceptable winter alternative. B) No bait year round. This would unfairly discriminate against fishermen that enjoy ice fishing. No bait basically eliminates the potential to catch burbot or lake trout in winter. It would be inconsistent with adopted regs in nearby lakes such as Summit and Paxson.

PROPOSED BY: Ethan Birkholz (HQ-09F-039) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 60 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Management Area. Allow a single hook with trailer hook in Harding Lake as follows:

The new regulation would be worded as follows: “Only single hook with the trailer hook being single hook.”

ISSUE: Regulation 5 AAC 70.015 currently states only one single-hook only for Harding Lake. I propose that under this regulation an additional trailer (another single hook) be allowed as a legal presentation.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the problem is not solved, nothing detrimental will occur as a result, however angling presentations will be limited due to “one individual single hook” compared to a trailer hook.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it increases the opportunities to catch more fish.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Many ice fishing anglers will benefit from this change to the regulation for example, anglers who make their own jigs can snell on an additional trailer hook. Lake trout hook mortality will continue to remain low.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, because the current bag and possession limit already minimizes harvest.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Michael J. Lunde (HQ-09F-170) *******************************************************************************

- 64 - PROPOSAL 61 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means for the Tanana River Area. Increase the northern pike bag limit in Volkmar Lake as follows:

(c)(28) in Volkmar Lake, northern pike may be taken only from June 1 through March 31, with a bag and possession limit of [ONE] three fish, of which only one fish may be 30 inches or greater in length.

ISSUE: Volkmar Lake is a remote northern pike fishery, approximately 15 miles northeast of Delta Junction, accessed primarily by snowmachine or by float or ski equipped aircraft. The bag and possession limit for northern pike has been one fish, no size limit, since 1997 due to declining abundance. This decline is attributed to excessive harvests in the late 1980’s and mid-1990’s. Stock assessment in 2000 estimated abundance at 615 northern pike greater than 18 inches in length; in 2005 the abundance was estimated at 1,630 northern pike greater than 18 inches. The management objective for the Volkmar Lake northern pike population is 2,000 northern pike greater than 18 inches. Based on the recent stock assessment trends it is believed that the northern pike population will reach the management objective and a liberalization of the bag limit is warranted. The proposed regulation of 3 fish, only one 30 inches or greater is believed to be sustainable with an abundance greater than 2,000 fish. Spear fishing would be prohibited. If the stock assessment in 2009 indicates the abundance of northern pike in Volkmar Lake is less than 2,000 pike greater than 18 inches the department will withdraw support for this proposal.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport anglers fishing for northern pike in Volkmor Lake would continue to have a reduced harvest opportunity.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers who want to harvest more than one fish at Volkmor Lake.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-050) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 63 - 5 AAC 74.044. Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan. Align areas in the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plans as follows:

This proposal aligns language in the sport fish Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan (5 AAC 74.044) with that in the subsistence Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan (5 AAC 01.244).

(b)(1) the maximum exploitation rate of northern pike in the lakes and flowing waters of the Minto Flats [LOWER CHATANIKA RIVER AND MINTO LAKES/GOLDSTREAM CREEK AREA] by all users may not exceed 20 percent annually;

ISSUE: The description of the area used to estimate the exploitation rate of northern pike in the Minto Flats subsistence and sport fish versions of the Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan is not the same, the intent of the plan is to include the same area and fish stocks. Currently, the plans describe two different areas. The proposed language will align the description of the area for which the exploitation rate is calculated.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The two management plans will continue to reference different descriptions of the area for which exploitation rate is calculated.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence and sport fish managers will benefit from a clear description of the area used to determine exploitation rates in the respective management plans.

- 66 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-140) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 64 - 5 AAC 01.244 (2)(b). Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan. Establish subsistence daily household limit for winter pike fishery as follows:

(B)…except as limited in (f) below. In the area described in (f) the daily household limit shall be 25 and 50 in possession.

ISSUE: To help prevent localized overharvest of congregated overwintering pike in the subsistence fishery near Minto.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued reduction of pike in Minto due to a handful of subsistence fishers who harvest more than they need.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. In 2007 one group of fishers harvested over 500 pike in one trip. This proposal will more equally distribute subsistence opportunity among more users until the seasonal limit of 1,500 pike is reached.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All those who use Minto pike.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who keep harvesting fish regardless of actual need, simply because they can under a no-limit regulation. The average subsistence harvest is much less than 50 pike. If more fish are needed, another trip called be taken.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-052) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 65 - 5 AAC 01.244. Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan. 70.044(d). Minto Flats Northern Pike Management Plan. Require single hooks for summer sport and winter subsistence pike fishery as follows:

(D) In the Chatanika River, Minto Lakes and Goldstream Creek only single hooks (may be multiple single hooks) may be used in the summer sport fishery or the winter subsistence fishery.

ISSUE: Unnecessary mortality due to catch and release with barbed treble hooks. In Minto the pike population has declined precipitously since 2006. It is assumed that many fish will be released in the winter subsistence fishery as fishers target specific size fish. Because of expected release, the subsistence fishery is single hook though multiple single hooks may be used.

- 67 -

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In the summer fishery the limit has been reduced from 5 to 2. People do not travel to Minto to only catch 2 fish. Many pike are caught with treble hooks, lifted from the water by the eyes or gillplates into the boat where hooks are removed. Single hooks facilitate release into the water and would reduce morality of a rapidly declining population.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. More fish will be safely released without impacting the harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who believe measures should be taken to reduce incidental mortality to help a stressed population of wild fish. Catch statistics gathered since 1995 show an average of 10 fish released for every 1 retained.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers who will have to change the hooks on their pike lures.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Stop fishing after daily limit retained. Rejected because most anglers enjoy hooking many fish during what are typically overnight trips.

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-053) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 66 - 5 AAC 07.365. Kuskokwim River Salmon Rebuilding Management Plan. Allow retention of chum salmon in Aniak River sport fishery as follows:

(e) In the sport fishery, (2) in the Aniak River drainage, the king salmon fishery will be open from May 1 through July 25, with a bag and possession limit of two fish, with an annual limit of two fish; the sockeye, pink, chum, and coho salmon fisheries are open year round, with a combined daily [A] bag and possession limit of all salmon species not to exceed three salmon, of which no more than two fish may be king salmon [THREE FISH OF EACH SPECIES; CHUM SALMON MAY NOT BE RETAINED OR POSSESSED].

ISSUE: In the Kuskokwim River Salmon Rebuilding Management Plan (KRSRMP), the provisions for retention of chum salmon in the sport fishery are not addressed. At the 2007 AYK Board of Fisheries meeting, a proposal was adopted that allowed the retention of sport caught chum salmon in the Aniak River, but corresponding language in the KRSRMP was not corrected. This will align the sport fishing bag and possession limit for salmon in the KRSRMP with the Aniak River sport regulations in 5 AAC 71.010(c)(3).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The regulations regarding the retention of chum salmon in the sport fishery will be contrary to the language in the KRSRMP.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

- 68 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen who want to retain chum salmon.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-139) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 67 - 5 AAC 07.331(c). Gillnet specifications and operations. Change maximum mesh size from 8 inch to 6 inch in Kuskokwim River as follows:

Repeal the phrase section of 5 AAC 07.331(c) allowing the use of up to 8 inch gear, so regulation would once again read as it has since 1986 that: “In Districts 1 and 2, salmon may be taken only with gillnets with six-inch or smaller mesh.”

ISSUE: The maximum allowable mesh size for commercial gillnets was reduced from eight to six inches or smaller in 1986 in response to a decline of Chinook salmon in the Kuskokwim and the related concerns for maintaining escapement and subsistence needs for those fish targeted with the larger mesh gear. In 2007, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted a regulation permitting the use of eight inch or smaller mesh gillnets, citing the desire to “have it in the management toolbox”, despite management input that it would not be used in directing harvest towards large Kings. These large fish which comprise most, if not all, of the viable spawning female component are already fully allocated on the Kuskokwim for escapement and subsistence priorities, and should not be subject to additional directed commercial harvest. The harvestable surplus of our Chinook population that may on occasion, be available for directed commercial exploitation, is composed of the smaller “jack kings” that are targeted with the 6 inch or smaller gear should the Chinook return even prove robust enough to alleviate concerns for the associated incidental catch of the larger fish component. This “tool” serves no purpose other than to clutter up the box, present false expectations, and encourage fueling of divisiveness that has little to no productive aftermath potential.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? An upset in the balance of management perspective that has evolved through a cooperative management process over the last 20+ years will remain in haunting resurrection, and threaten implementation should future political or other administrative pressures prevail over the stated management priorities as has occurred in other venues of past management action.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Chinook Salmon population of the Kuskokwim drainage and subsistence users who annually rely upon them.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those singularly focused on short term interest gains, without

- 69 - due consideration to long-term consequences for maintaining the integrity of Kuskokwim king salmon populations and related subsistence use needs into the future.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? If the Board chooses to keep this regulation on the books for abstract purposes, it should at least clarify that the use of up to 8” gillnets for commercial fishing would not be allowed during the month of July.

PROPOSED BY: Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Working Group (HQ-09F-169) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 68 - 5 AAC 01.120. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Expand hook and line use for subsistence from Wales to Point Hope as follows: (b) Fish other than salmon may be taken by set gillnet, drift gillnet, beach seine, fish wheel, pot, longline, fyke net, dip net, jigging gear, spear, and lead, or, as specified in (f) of this section, by rod and reel or by a hook and a line attached to a rod or a pole. (f) a person may use a rod and reel or a hook and line attached to a rod or a pole when subsistence fishing only (1) in the state waters of, and all flowing waters that drain into, the Chukchi Sea or Kotzebue Sound from Point Hope [CAPE ESPENBERG] to Cape Prince of Wales; or…

ISSUE: Recognize rod and reel as lawful gear for taking salmon and other fish for subsistence and change the geographic area that 5AAC 01.120 pertains to.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? People will continue to need a sport fishing license to subsistence fish in the region with a rod and reel and be subject to law enforcement action for not having same when catching fish for food (subsistence) and not sporting purposes.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local people in the Kotzebue Area who customarily harvest fish for food (subsistence) with a rod and reel and do not possess a sport fishing license, because they are not fishing for sport.

The continued use of rod and reel for subsistence fishing has been documented over a ten year period by ADF&G Subsistence Division in the report titled: “Estimated Subsistence Harvests of Fish by Gear (Comprehensive Surveys in Kivalina (1992), Deering (1994), Noatak (1994), and Shungnak (2002)” and accounted for 10.1% of harvest of all fish species found in the region in this survey report.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None, this is the only solution available to remedy the problem.

- 70 - PROPOSED BY: Kotzebue AC (HQ-09F-035) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 69 - 5 AAC 01.170 (b). Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications; and 5 AAC 01.172(a). Limitations on Subsistence Fishing Gear. Expand hook and line use for subsistence in Norton Sound as follows:

5 AAC 01.170 Lawful Gear and Gear Specifications. (b) A person may use a hook and line attached to a rod or a pole when subsistence fishing only (3) in the state waters of, and all flowing waters that drain into, the Bering Sea or Norton Sound from Bald Point to Point Romanoff, except the Unalakleet River Drainage.

5 AAC 01.172 Limitations on Subsistence Fishing Gear. (a) Except when fishing through the ice, for subsistence fishing in state waters of, and all flowing waters that drain into, northern Norton sound form Cape Prince of Wales to Point Romanoff, except the Unalakleet River Drainage [BALD POINT (BETWEEN ELIM AND KOYUK)] and with a hook and line attached to a rod or a pole, the following provisions apply.

ISSUE: This proposal is meant to make rod and reel legal subsistence gear for all of Norton Sound Area except the Unalakleet River Drainage. Currently subsistence rod and reel is only legal in that portion of the Norton Sound area west of Bald Point. Subsistence users of Koyuk, Shaktoolik, St. Michael and Stephens have all expressed the desire to be allowed to subsistence fish with the same means that the northern residence of Norton Sound area are able to use. Unalakleet has asked to be excluded for this proposal.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be a disparity for subsistence users within the Norton Sound Area.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, subsistence fishers can better target specific fish species. They can also control their harvest better when only wanting to harvest a few fish.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local people in eastern Norton Sound who customarily harvest fish for food (subsistence) with a rod and reel and do not possess a sport fish license.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Frank Kavairlook Sr. (HQ-09F-068) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 70 - 5 AAC 01.172. Limitations on subsistence fishing gear. Allow snagging for non-salmon species in Nome and Port Clarence as follows:

- 71 -

Snagging throughout the year during ice covered and ice free conditions should be allowed in freshwater. 5 AAC 01.010 should be amended to allow snagging of whitefish, suckers, saffron cod, Arctic cod, rainbow smelt and burbot, for Nome and Port Clarence residents in all Nome and Port Clarence streams.

ISSUE: Establishing legal methods and means for harvesting whitefish, suckers, saffron cod, Arctic cod, rainbow smelt, and burbot, which would permit subsistence users to harvest them without fear of citation. Snagging is currently not allowed in the fresh water but is allowed in salt water, under current regulations and should be made legal in fresh water so that subsistence users in Nome and Port Clarence districts can continue long standing traditions. Numerous hook and line methods are use by Nome and Port Clarence residents to harvest all manner of fish, whether fish were caught thru the mouth or snagged.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the problem is not solved subsistence users will continue to face possible citation. Snagging of whitefish, suckers, saffron cod, arctic cod, rainbow smelt and burbot is a long standing tradition that has been prohibited in freshwater but practiced despite the prohibition of snagging in current regulations.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal if implemented would improve the quality of the resource harvested. During the late summer and early fall it is popular for people to seine for whitefish. However, if someone does not wish to seine or if a person does not own a seine or have the opportunity to partner with someone who has a seine it is difficult for someone to harvest whitefish, suckers, or burbot otherwise. Snagging must be allowed so that persons can practice the long standing tradition of snagging them and not fear citation. It is popular for persons while hunting caribou, moose, bear, or Muskox to want to harvest whitefish, suckers, or burbot with a hook and line and snag them since they will not readily take a hook. Fishing while hunting is a long standing outdoor tradition that should be made accessible by snagging. Fish like saffron cod, arctic cod, and rainbow smelt are usually snagged without discretion, since it is difficult not to snag them when they are numerous.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence users are likely to benefit.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will be harmed, it is highly unlikely that any other US citizen makes use of Nome or Port Clarence whitefish, suckers, saffron cod, arctic cod, rainbow smelt, or burbot other than Nome, Teller, or Brevig Mission residents, or even has any interest to harvest Nome and Port Clarence population of whitefish, suckers, saffron cod, arctic cod, rainbow smelt, or burbot. There are no trophy or sport aesthetics that are harmed by allowing snagging. Legalizing snagging cannot possibly impact them since they are so numerous.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions considered.

PROPOSED BY: Nome Eskimo Community (HQ-09F-020) ******************************************************************************

- 72 - PROPOSAL 71 - 5 AAC 01.170(e). Lawful gear and gear specifications. Allow seining for salmon in Nome Subdistrict as follows:

Open seining for salmon in Nome subdistrict.

ISSUE: Seining for salmon is closed in Nome Subdistrict.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Loss of subsistence opportunity.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Improves quality of harvest gill nets damage fish and one cannot target species preferred.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All subsistence fishermen in Nome subdistrict who wish to fish with seine net.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Thomas S. Sparks (HQ-09F-003) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 72 - 5 AAC 01.170. Lawful gear and gear specifications; 5 AAC 04.395. Subdistricts 5 and 6 of the Norton Sound District and the Unalakleet River King Salmon Management Plan. Review Unalakleet king salmon management plan and modify mesh size as follows:

5 AAC 01.170(k) In Subdistricts 5 and 6, the commissioner may, by emergency order, open and close fishing periods during which a gillnet may have a mesh size no greater than (1) six inches; (2) four and one-half inches; (3) seven inches.

ISSUE: Subdistricts 5 and 6 king salmon runs have been below expectations since 2000 and have been designated a stock of yield concern since 2004. In addition, closures to commercial fishing, severe restrictions on subsistence opportunity, and reductions in sport fish bag limits have not had the desired effect of increasing escapements. Tower-based sustainable escapement goals at the North River, an important king salmon spawning tributary of the Unalakleet River have only been reached 50% of time since 1999. A record-low North River king salmon escapement (903 fish) occurred in 2008 despite a restrictive subsistence schedule, inriver mesh-size restrictions in late June, and an early closure to the subsistence and sport fisheries on July 5. As a result of these restrictions, the Unalakleet (Subdistrict 6) subsistence harvest of 1,402 king salmon was also the lowest on record.

- 73 - This proposal would give managers the ability to restrict gillnet mesh size to seven inches or less by emergency order. This additional management option will provide subsistence fishers with the opportunity to harvest some of the smaller king salmon while allowing female salmon that are generally larger to reach spawning areas, as well as reducing pink and chum salmon catches which are common when fishing with the smaller mesh nets. Restricting gillnet mesh size to seven inches or less may occur earlier in the season than the current option of six inch or less mesh size that has effectively closed king fishing because of high incidental catches of pink salmon in recent years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In the future, the department may close unrestricted mesh size subsistence fishing periods and establish mesh-size restrictions of six inches or less by emergency order earlier in the run. This will further reduce opportunity to harvest king salmon for subsistence uses.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence fishermen will have an opportunity to harvest smaller king salmon earlier in the run rather than having subsistence fishing closed or being required to use six-inch or less mesh size, which increases pink and chum salmon catch. All users will benefit by having escapements consisting of greater numbers of larger and more fecund females, thereby increasing egg deposition on the spawning grounds.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who would need to purchase a 7-inch net to continue fishing for larger kings if they did not want to use a 6-inch net because of the higher incidental catch of chums and pinks.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-119) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 73 - 5 AAC 04.310. Fishing Seasons. Change opening dates for Port Clarence District sockeye fishery as follows:

(4) In the Port Clarence District, during fishing periods established by emergency order from June 15 [JULY 1] through July 31.

ISSUE: The Port Clarence commercial salmon fishery is only two years old and it has become apparent that the season is set too late to maximize the opportunity of sockeye harvest. The current opener is approaching the mid point of the sockeye migration through the commercial fishing district. A minimum of a week earlier date would be appropriate.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The commercial fishery will continue to have a high incidental harvest of chum salmon and the abundant sockeye stock will be under utilized.

- 74 -

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the salmon harvested will be brighter and the proportion of sockeye salmon will increase in the harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Port Clarence commercial salmon fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? An earlier opening will have some risk associated with it in that an evaluation of the return strength is less exact early in the season. This fishery has had very low participation and currently is unlikely to significantly over harvest the stock.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Norton Sound Economic Corp. (HQ-09F-037) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 74 - 5 AAC 04.200(b)(a). Fishing districts and subdistricts. Expand boundaries of Norton Sound Subdistrict 3 as follows:

5 AAC 04.200(b) The Norton Sound District consists of all waters between the latitude of the western most tip of Cape Douglas and the latitude of Point Romanof. The following are regulatory subdistricts of the Norton Sound District: (3) Subdistrict 3 consists of waters from a Department of Fish and Game regulatory marker located at Carson Creek [THREE-FOURTHS OF A MILE EAST OF ELIM VILLAGE ON ELIM POINT] to the tip of Bald Head [TERMINUS OF KWIK RIVER];

ISSUE: This proposal is intended to move the western boundary of the Norton Sound Subdistrict 3 west to Carson Creek and the eastern boundary to Bald Head. Currently there is limited area to fish near the mouth of the Kwiniuk River. The larger area will allow fishers to have more areas to find locations to target specific salmon species. From subsistence fishing experience many fishers have found areas to the west and east of the current boundary that they can target one species while avoiding another species. In 2007 pink harvest was passed up due to the concern of low chum salmon escapement. This would allow fishers area to search for location to target pinks exclusively. Also salmon are often water marked this close to the river mouth.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Commercial salmon fishers will forgo harvest on an abundant salmon species in order to protect a weak species. It will also have a side benefit of improving fish quality.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Higher numbers of the abundant species will be harvested and fish quality will improve.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subdistrict 3 commercial salmon fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

- 75 -

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None

PROPOSED BY: Morris Nakarak (HQ-09F-066) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 75 - 5 AAC 04.330. Gear. Expand use of drift gillnets to Port Clarence District as follows:

Set and drift gillnets [ONLY] may be operated [, EXCEPT THAT] in the Norton Sound-Port Clarence District [DRIFT GILLNETS MAY BE OPERATED] as specified in 5 AAC 04.331.

ISSUE: Extend the drift gillnet operation to the entire Norton Sound-Port Clarence District as it is already authorized in the Norton Sound District.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unnecessary regulatory prohibition of a fishing method that could reduce conflict with subsistence salmon users and reduce chum salmon bycatch while facilitating targeted sockeye salmon harvesting.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Salmon taken in drift gillnets would be higher quality because they tend to be removed form nets sooner after catching than from set nets.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone. Allowing drift gillnets would let fishermen spread out and reduce conflicts over productive setnets sites. It would also allow fishermen targeting sockeye salmon to move to areas where incidental chum salmon bycatch was lower.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Nome Fishermen’s Association (HQ-09F-162) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 76 - 5 AAC 04.330. Gear. Allow purse seines to harvest pink salmon in Norton Sound as follows:

Set gillnets only may be operated, except that in the Norton Sound District seines may be operated as specified in 5 AAC 04.332 seine specifications and operations when special pink salmon openings are established by emergency order.

5 AAC 04.332. Seine Specifications and Operation. (a) Purse seines and beach seines may not be more than 250 fathoms in length and 325 meshes in depth. (b) a vessel may have no more than one legal seine net on board.

- 76 - ISSUE: Norton Sound pink salmon are the smallest in the state. Gillnet regulations do not provide for an opportunity to harvest an even mix of female and male fish and so the catch is not economic to harvest. Seines would provide a better roe content to the catch and economy of scale that would allow for an increased opportunity to the commercial fishers.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The very abundant pink salmon fishery will go largely unutilized.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, roe content will improve, and handling damage will be reduced.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Norton Sound commercial salmon fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? During years of pink salmon abundance there will be no possibility of conflict. It is anticipated that during years of low abundance seining will not be allowed.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Lowering the gill net size minimum size to 3 inch mesh, but this would require a statewide regulation change.

PROPOSED BY: Adem Boechmann (HQ-09F-036) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 77 - 5 AAC 04.330. Gear. Allow purse and beach seines in Norton Sound-Port Clarence as follows:

Set gillnets only may be operated, except that in the Norton Sound district drift gillnets may be operated as specified in 5 AAC 04.331.

Purse seines and beach seines may be operated for harvesting salmon.

ISSUE: Authorize purse seines and beach seines for harvesting salmon in the Norton Sound- Port Clarence district.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unnecessary regulatory prohibition of a fishing method that could facilitate efficient salmon harvesting.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Salmon taken in seines would be higher quality than those taken in gillnets. Gillnets reduce flesh quality particularly with pink salmon which would be the primary species targeted.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone. Using purse seines and beach seines would allow fishermen to more efficiently harvest the large pink salmon runs we have experienced since 2004 with lower incidental bycatch mortality of other salmon species.

- 77 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Nome Fishermen’s Association (HQ-09F-163) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 78 - 5 AAC 27.965(m). Management for Herring Pound Norton Sound. Allow closed pounding for herring spawn-on-kelp in Norton Sound as follows:

Delete the line in the regulation that reads: “The structure may not have an enclosure.”

ISSUE: This proposal is intended to allow closed pounding as well as opening pounding of spawn on kelp. The health of the Norton Sound herring stock is excellent and barely utilized since the collapse of the herring roe market in western Alaska. This additional opportunity will help to more fully utilize an abundant resource and provide local employment.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Closed pounding will allow permit holders to more actively manage the kelp they have spent significant money to bring in from Southeast Alaska. Open pounding often results in light coverage and then inability to recover costs.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Better coverage of the Macrocystis kelp will result bringing a better price. Closed pounding will also help the pounds to sited further form sources of mud which will result in a higher quality product.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Pound fishers.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? In years past, Sac roe quota was affected by this harvest, but currently harvests are far below the allowable harvest: so there will be no adverse affect.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Limits on area and on the number of pounds. They are not needed at this time.

PROPOSED BY: Eric Osborne (HQ-09F-067) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 79 - 5 AAC 27.965(a) & (m). Management Plan for Herring Pound Spawn-On- Kelp Fishery in the Norton Sound District. Allow closed pounding for herring in Norton Sound and Port Clarence as follows:

(a) The purpose of this management plan is to establish criteria for the herring pound spawn- on-kelp fishery in the Norton Sound-Port Clarence District.

(m) For the purposes of this section, a “herring pound” is a structure or a means of suspending kelp in the water to provide spawning substrate for herring to be harvested as

- 78 - spawn on kelp. The structure may not have an enclosure, but may have two leads. A lead may not be more than 300 feet in length measured from shore to a point on the structure. The lead shall consist of a seine weight net with meshes of no more than two inches stretched measure, a cork line, a lead line, and anchors at either end.

ISSUE: Authorize closed pounding for herring spawn on kelp in the Norton sound-Port Clarence District.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unnecessary regulatory prohibition of a method for utilizing the Norton Sound herring resource which is very large and potentially lucrative.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Herring pound spawn on kelp is a very high quality product compared to wild harvested herring spawn on kelp. Open pounding has not proven practical for producing consistent product.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone. This proposal would authorize another method for utilizing Norton Sound fishery products and create a new fisheries related industry.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Nome Fishermen’s Association (HQ-09F-164) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 80 - 5 AAC 70.011(c)(3)(d). Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits for the Northwestern Management Area. Amend sport fishing bag limits for chum salmon in Norton Sound as follows:

The new regulation would replace the closure wording in the sport fishing regulations for the Nome subdistrict with a daily bag limit of one, two or three chum salmon. (i.e. delete the exception)

ISSUE: Nome subdistrict waters were close to sport fishing for chum salmon in 1992 in a coordinated effort to rebuild chum salmon runs because of a history of weak returns. The effort included subsistence restrictions and closures that manifested themselves as Tier II subsistence fishing regulations for the Nome subdistrict. These efforts appear to have met with success. Chum salmon escapement goals have been developed for many rivers and in four out of the most recent five years those goals have been met. Subsistence fishing has returnee to normal regulation for area including the Nome subdistrict.

Currently it is not legal for a sport angler to even cast to a chum salmon with the intent of hooking it.

- 79 - With healthy chum salmon runs, escapement goals being met and the return to normal subsistence fishing regulation, there is no reason why sport anglers should not be allowed to fish for and harvest chum salmon in the Nome subdistrict.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Sport anglers will continue to not be allowed to fish for chum salmon in the Nome subdistrict.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport anglers wishing to angle for chum salmon in Nome subdistrict waters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one as both participation and harvest are likely to be low and the fishery could easily be constrained by Emergency Order if returns were projected not to meet escapement goals.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Fred DeCicco (HQ-09F-040) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 81 - 5 AAC 01.210. Fishing Seasons and Periods. Clarify subsistence fishing schedule in Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C as follows:

Clarify the subsistence fishing schedule in Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C during commercial fishing closures lasting longer than five days.

Repeal current language under (d)(1) and replace with:

(d)(1) In District 4, excluding the Koyukuk drainage, salmon may not be taken: (A) In Subdistrict 4-A, from 6:00 p.m. Sunday until 6:00 p.m. Tuesday; (B) In Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C, from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 6:00 p.m. Sunday.

ISSUE: Subsistence fishing time during commercial fishing closures longer than five days was changed at the 2004 board meeting to allow subsistence fishing during the weekend in District 4. However, fishermen in Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C informed ADF&G that they wanted to remain on the traditional schedule in place since 1976. ADF&G has done this by emergency order since 2004. This proposal would change regulations so there would be no need to make this adjustment through an emergency order.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue to issue an emergency order to change subsistence fishing times in Subdistricts 4-B and 4-C.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

- 80 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen in Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C who want to maintain the traditional subsistence fishing schedule.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen who do not want to change the current regulations.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-118) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 82 - 5 AAC 01.210. Fishing Seasons and Periods. Modify subsistence fishing schedule in Subdistrict 4-A as follows:

Allow subsistence fishing in Subdistrict 4-A to be open for two 48-hour periods during the commercial fishing season.

(c)(1) District 4, excluding the Koyukuk River drainage: [IN SUBDISTRICTS 4-B AND 4-C] from June 15 through September 30, salmon may be taken for two 48-hour fishing periods per week, established by emergency order;

(e) In Districts 1, 2, and 3 [AND SUBDISTRICT 4-A], excluding the [KOYUKUK AND] Innoko River drainage[S], salmon may not …

(e)(2) Repealed.

(f) Repealed.

ISSUE: Up until the mid-1990s, Subdistrict 4-A had a large scale commercial fishery that targeted summer chum salmon for roe extraction with heavy fishing pressure. The roe market crashed in 1996 and was followed by a period of poor summer chum runs from 1998 through 2002. This resulted in the loss of commercial fisheries infrastructure and fishing gear. Since 2003, Subdistrict 4-A has been struggling to reestablish a viable fishery. In an effort to rebuild this fishery, ADF&G has worked with buyers and fishermen to maximize harvest efficiencies which are critical for operations in this remote section of river. The primary commercial fishing gear is fish wheels, which target chum salmon that are migrating along the river bank. The number of fish wheels is much lower now than during the peak of the commercial fishery in the early 1990s and fishing periods are longer in duration. In recent years fishery managers have allowed subsistence and commercial fishing to take place concurrently through the use of emergency orders. At this time, ADF&G does not have a concern for illegal roe entering the market because of DEC processing requirements. Additionally, most subsistence fishing in Subdistrict 4-A is conducted with drift gillnet gear to target king salmon, not summer chum salmon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department would likely continue to issue emergency orders to allow concurrent openings of commercial and subsistence fishing periods.

- 81 -

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who plan ahead for their fishing activity.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who would like to have subsistence and commercial fishing periods separated.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-117) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 83 - 5 AAC 01.230. Subsistence Fishing Permits. Require recording subsistence harvest on catch calendars as follows:

All subsistence users must have a catch calendar and shall record all harvested fish on the catch calendar in ink, before concealing the fish from plain view, transported from the fishing site or off loaded from a vessel. Fishing site means the location where the fish is removed from the water. If fish are shared outside the household of the catch calendar holder, the number of fish shared and the name of the person(s) shared with must also be recorded in the catch calendar. The catch calendar must be available for inspection by the department or any law enforcement officer at any fish camp, fishing location, or primary residence of the catch calendar holder.

ISSUE: Commercial use of subsistence caught fish in the Yukon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued commercialization of subsistence caught fish.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. A harvest and transfer record kept in a catch calendar will provide accountability and allow fish to be tracked and accounted for.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All subsistence users who wish to preserve their access to this resource.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who commercialize their subsistence catch. It is known that certain individuals on the Yukon catch many more kings than their subsistence needs require. They sell or barter these excess fish and end up for sale in Fairbanks or Anchorage, often as smoked strips.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other forms of recording and reporting were considered, because the catch calendar is delivered to all known fishers every season, this method was determined to be the most efficient and easiest to implement and enforce, with little burden on the department or subsistence users.

- 82 -

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-051) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 84 - 5 AAC 01.220. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Extend Subdistricts 4- B and 4-C drift gillnet area for king salmon as follows:

To reduce fishing pressure, Middle Yukon AC recommends extending the drift gillnetting area upriver into State waters of Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C to the mouth of Yuki River. This would require amending 5 AAC 01.220. (e)(2) to include drifting for Chinook salmon in portions of Yukon Area Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C to as follows:

(e)(2) In Subdistrict 4-A downstream from the mouth of Stink Creek and in Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C downstream from the mouth of Yuki River, king salmon may be taken by drift gillnets from June 10 through July 14.

ISSUE: To reduce fishing pressure off of Chinook salmon subsistence harvest in one popular Yukon River drift gillnet fishing location near Koyukuk village. Currently, this area is highly desirable drifting location by fishers that travel from considerable distances to get there, primarily form Koyukuk and Galena communities; however, fishers from Huslia, Nulato, Ruby and other communities also travel there to harvest fish in this location. Additionally, the drifting area near Koyakuk village is a desirable fishing location that creates congestion among fishers which can render the area as hazardous when fishers compete with one another especially during reduced fishing schedules. Often time fishers wait to be able to drift once then wait again for their turn.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If nothing is changed, there will be continued concentrated drift gillnetting fishing pressure targeting same stocks of fish during each subsistence opening. Fishing congestion in this one popular fish location will continue which will increase chances of conflict between subsistence users. During years of subsistence reduced fishing time, conflicts will increase.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by extending drift gillnet fishing into Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C will reduce fishing pressure on Chinook salmon harvested in one constricted and highly desirable fishing area (Koyukuk area) and distribute harvest over a broader area. Yes, by allowing drift gillnetting in Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C, this will spread the Chinook salmon harvest over a larger area and reduce harvest on any one concentrated stock of Chinook salmon. Additionally, quality of harvest by fishers from Galena and Ruby will increase because of the shorter distances needed to travel from fishing grounds to their home communities of fish camps to process fish. With less travel time, fuel cost will also be less.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource will be benefited because drift gillnet fishing pressure will be spread out over a larger area. All subsistence users that currently drift for Chinook salmon in the Koyukuk area will benefit because there will be less competition for the

- 83 - desirable fishing location resulting in more time available to subsistence fish while costing less for fuel and oil because of shorter travel distances.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Fishers that fail to find or loose drift gillnet hear in attempting to locate a comparable drift gillnetting site in Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C? Possibly the escapement and fishers drainage-wide if this regulation change alters the salmon stocks composition that are harvested in Subdistrict 4-B and 4-C drift fisheries?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (HQ-09F-043) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 87 - 5 AAC 05.360. Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan. Review triggers, GHR, fishing schedule in king salmon management plan as follows:

(b)(1) Evaluate potential triggers and management tools for managing subsistence, commercial, personal use, and sport fisheries. (b)(2) Review commercial guideline harvest ranges.

(d) Review subsistence fishing schedule.

ISSUE: Yukon River king salmon are designated as a stock of yield concern and the escapement goal for the Canadian Yukon River mainstem, which was agreed to by Yukon Panel, was not met in 2007 and 2008. As directed by the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries, ADF&G will develop an Action Plan for the Alaska Board of Fisheries (board) AYK cycle meeting. The Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan will be reviewed as part of the Action Plan. ADF&G will work with the public to evaluate potential management triggers and tools to meet escapement goals, provide for the subsistence priority, and identify a surplus for other uses. The guideline harvest ranges for commercial fisheries were originally established in 1981. During the past decade the available yield has been much lower than previous years. Thus, a review of the guideline harvest ranges is necessary. The subsistence fishing schedule will be re-examined in view of meeting escapement goals and potential triggers for management.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department would continue management without an updated management plan.

- 86 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users will benefit by being better informed in regard to inseason management actions and from an enhanced management plan based on meeting escapement goals.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who would like to see all salmon fishing closed to protect a weak run on a particular salmon species.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-116) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 88 - 5 AAC 05.331. Gillnet specifications and operations; and 5 AAC 01.220. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Prohibit drift gillnet gear for subsistence and commercial fishing as follows:

Fishing method restriction. No subsistence or commercial driftnet fishing allowed in the entire Yukon River drainage. All upriver and downriver driftnet areas would be included in this proposal.

ISSUE: Drift gillnetting is recognized as an extremely effective gear at catching the larger, offshore and more non local stocks (Canadian bound) of Chinook salmon in the Yukon River. However, given a run in decline and the need by management to severely restrict, even subsistence users, as fairly as is possible in all the districts of the drainage, then allowing drift netting in selected upriver and downriver areas becomes an impossible problem to deal with. Given a large amount of Chinook and a healthy range of age classes and the need to harvest a large quantity, it is not a problem if everyone has the same right to do it. This is especially true in the Yukon, where, ironically, you have most of the best areas to catch Chinook having been given the right to driftnet and most of the poorest areas to catch them being denied the right. An extreme example of this is the lower districts of the Yukon versus the Koyukuk River drainage or the Yukon Flats district. A decent set net spot in the Koyukuk drainage might produce say six Chinook for the entire season or even less according to Huslia fishermen at a recent YRDFA meeting. Koyukuk River fishermen and the Yukon Flats fishermen (Ft. Yukon Area) are not allowed to drift net. Each year on the YRDFA teleconferences we hear of lower Yukon River driftnet fishermen catching amounts such as 30 fish in one hour or 100 in a short day. Presently management of our allowable fishing gear types has no rhyme or reason to it. When one hour of fishing a season in one of these driftnet districts can produce more and bigger fish than a non driftnet district can get if allowed to fish seven days a week all season then we have a situation that is totally unfair and impossible to insure any degree of equable distribution of fish to meet subsistence needs, especially in years of poor runs.

Large mesh drift gillnetting has had a detrimental effect on the stock composition and quality of escapements for Yukon River Chinook salmon and targets the larger and female Chinook

- 87 - salmon. There continues to be poor returns of Yukon River salmon since 1998. This has led to conservation concerns on the spawning grounds. These poorer returns do not allow subsistence users a reasonable opportunity to meet their subsistence salmon needs. The use of the larger drift gillnets has changed, and will continue to change the composition of the Chinook stocks harvested. Subsistence fishermen in the middle and upper Yukon Rivers have repeatedly noted that the returning Chinook salmon are getting smaller and conservation measures are needed to protect the larger fish that in turn protects the genetic variability and loss of the older age classes of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks.

Chinook salmon harvest in Y5 and Y6 fish wheels is over 70 percent precocious males under 10 pounds. In the Taku River in Southeast Alaska the directed commercial fishery was closed for 30 years when this happened. The Tozitna River fishery monitoring project (BLM) is one example showing that the composition of Chinook salmon escapement is heavily skewed toward smaller, male fish or jacks. The Rapids Student Data Collection Project at Yukon River mile 730 has randomly sampled over 5000 Chinook (in fish wheels) from 2004 to 2008 with an average weight of a little more than 11 ½ lbs. In 2008 out of 1137 Chinook only 2.1% (24 fish) were over 25 lbs, and .5% (6 fish) were over 30 lbs.

Even smaller average weights of under 10 lbs were seen at Eagle by the Canadian border in a 2006 sampling effort. In 2008 the Canadian government Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) test fishing showed female Chinook salmon have represented only 23% of the seasons fish wheel catch with females representing only 13% in the early part of the run. The early period is recognized as the hardest hit and most fished in the U.S. portion of the river. The number of female Chinook salmon caught in the DFO net test fishery (used nets with an 8 inch mesh size) represented only 28% of the total catch.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Dealing with the inevitable subsistence restrictions necessary in these years of declining Chinook salmon returns will continue to be impossible to manage fairly. While all districts have different levels of opportunity to harvest salmon due to natural causes as well as allowable gear types, with some gear like driftnets being more effective, the current management strategy will continue to allow an unnecessarily high level of unfairness as the salmon move up river. Not eliminating drift netting would continue the over harvest of the offshore, Canadian bound Chinook salmon. If a combination of management actions are not taken now the genetic shift to smaller fish, genetic variability and loss of the older age classes of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks will continue and a complete closure of even basic household subsistence use could be necessary. This proposal is one of a number of recognized actions needed to address the Yukon River drainage Chinook salmon problem.

- 88 - subsistence users and fishery projects in the Yukon River, including Canada, are reporting harvesting smaller fish. Conservation actions are necessary now to protect the genetic variability, the integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks, and the future sustainability of these stocks for future generations of fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The proposers feel all fishermen in the drainage will benefit in the long run by allowing more Canadian Chinook salmon past the border and reach their spawning grounds. Subsistence and commercial users will benefit by helping to rebuild the genetic variability and integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks for future generations of fishermen across the drainage. Stabilizing the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks and preventing a further decrease in their size is the right step for the fisheries and is good for the Alaskan subsistence lifestyle and the Canadian aboriginal lifestyle in the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Clearly, anyone allowed to driftnet now will not like having the same rights as those not allowed to driftnet. However, were most of the areas that are allowed to driftnet now restricted from doing so, they would still have far better opportunities to catch Chinook and other species than most of the areas that would continue to be restricted. It is also a fact that drift netting was rarely a traditional fishing method prior to the limited entry program and the early 1980’s. Set net sites and/or fish wheels were the methods used across Yukon River. The proposers are keenly aware passage of this proposal would place restrictions on users but the conservation concern of the genetic impacts of continued over fishing and targeting the larger female salmon needs to be addressed now in order to protect the Yukon River Chinook salmon runs for needs in the future. As of 2008 Yukon fishermen have lost all their allowed Chinook commercial fishing time and have severe restrictions being put on basic Chinook subsistence harvests. Fish camps and the healthy lifestyle that goes along with them have continued disappearing as Chinook fishery economy evaporates due to high fuel costs and low harvest numbers. This has all taken place simply because there are not enough fish anymore. Any seasonal suffering caused by Board of Fish passing of this proposal would be small compared to what has taken place already from inaction.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allowing drift netting in all districts was suggested. While this seemed to solve the fairness issue it was quickly rejected because of the present Chinook salmon run decline and the over harvest dangers of allowing more areas to fish such a highly effective gear.

PROPOSED BY: Co-authored by: Tanana Rampart Manley AC, Eastern Interior Regional Advisory Council, Fairbanks AC, Minto-Nenana AC, and Ruby AC (HQ-09F-032) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 89 - 5 AAC 05.331. Gillnet specifications and operations; and 5 AAC 01.220. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Restrict depth of subsistence and commercial 6 inch mesh to 35 meshes as follows:

Gill net depth limit. No commercial or subsistence 6” gill nets with a hung depth of more than 15’ or 35 meshes shall be allowed in entire Yukon River drainage.

- 89 - ISSUE: Deeper nets are having a detrimental affect on the stock composition and quality of escapements for Yukon River Chinook salmon and tend to target the larger and female Chinook salmon which most fishermen claim swim deeper. This knowledge is commonly accepted along the river. Limiting the depth of nets would clearly allow more fish to pass through a fishery unmolested. There have been continued poor returns of Yukon River salmon in the majority of the years since 1998. This has led to conservation concerns on the quality of escapement on the spawning grounds. These poorer returns are also not allowing subsistence users to have a reasonable opportunity to meet their subsistence salmon needs. The use of the larger gillnets has changed, and will continue to change the composition of the Chinook stocks harvested. Subsistence fishermen in the middle and upper Yukon Rivers have repeatedly noted that the returning Chinook salmon are getting smaller and conservation measures are needed to protect the larger fish that in turns protects the genetic variability and loss of the older age classes of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks.

Chinook salmon harvest in Y5 and Y6 with fish wheels is over 70 percent precocious males under 10 pounds. In the Taku River in Southeast Alaska the directed commercial fishery was closed for 30 years when this happened. The Tozitna River fishery monitoring project (BLM) is one example showing that the composition of Chinook salmon escapement is heavily skewed toward smaller, male fish or jacks. The Rapids Student Data Collection Project at Yukon River mile 730 has randomly sampled over 5000 Chinook (in fish wheels) from 2004 to 2008 with an average weight of a little more than 11 ½ lbs. In 2008 out of 1137 Chinook only 2.1% (24 fish) were over 25 lbs, and .5% (6 fish) were over 30lbs. Even smaller average weights of under 10 lbs were seen at Eagle by the Canadian border in a 2006 sampling effort.

In 2008 the Canadian government Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) test fishing showed female Chinook salmon have represented only 23% of the seasons fish wheel catch with females representing only 13% in the early part of the run. The early period is recognized as the hardest hit and most fished in the U.S. portion of the river. The number of female Chinook salmon caught in the DFO net test fishery (used nets with an 8 inch mesh size) represented only 28% of the total catch.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If management actions are not taken now the genetic shift to smaller fish, the reduction in genetic variability and the loss of the older age classes of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks will continue and a complete closure of even basic household subsistence use could be necessary. This proposal is one of a number of recognized actions, able to help the problem, that need to be taken.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is attempting to improve the quality of the resource harvested by conserving the resource. In 2008 Chinook harvests were limited to subsistence only with severe restrictions even on that and Canadian border passage was still not met for second year in a row. All returning Chinook salmon and the especially important larger female salmon will be provided additional opportunity to reach their spawning grounds which would help improve the quality of escapement of Chinook salmon throughout the Yukon River drainage. Passage of this proposal would address the genetic shift to smaller fish caused by over fishing and targeting the larger fish that has gone on for many years. Local subsistence users and fishery projects in the

- 90 - upper Yukon River area, including Canada, are reporting harvesting smaller fish. Conservation actions are necessary now to protect the genetic variability, the integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The proposers feel all fishers in the drainage will benefit except those whose priority is the immediate harvest of fish at hand. Subsistence and commercial users will benefit by helping to rebuild the genetic variability and integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks for future generations of fishers across the drainage. Stabilizing the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks and preventing a decrease in their size is the right step for the fisheries and is good for the subsistence lifestyle in the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those fishermen whose priority is the immediate harvest of fish at hand. The proposers are keenly aware passage of this proposal would place restrictions on users but the conservation concern of the genetic impacts of continued over fishing and targeting the larger female fish needs to be addressed now in order to protect the Yukon River Chinook salmon runs for needs in the future. Had some smaller steps been taken many board cycles ago when similar proposals and concerns started appearing we may not be in the severe situation we find ourselves faced with today where fishermen are being asked to give up so much of their fishing livelihood.

As of 2008 Yukon fishermen have lost all their allowed Chinook commercial fishing time and have severe restrictions being put on basic Chinook subsistence harvests. Fish camps and the healthy lifestyle that goes along with them have continued disappearing as the Chinook fishery economics evaporate due to high fuel costs and low harvest numbers.. This has all taken place, not by virtue of proposals proposed and passed by the Board of Fish, but simply because there are not enough fish anymore. Any seasonal suffering caused by the Board of Fish passing of this proposal would be small compared to what has taken place already from inaction.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None others considered in this area.

PROPOSED BY: Co-authored by: Tanana Rampart Manley AC, Eastern Interior Regional Advisory Council, Fairbanks AC, Minto-Nenana AC, and Ruby AC (HQ-09F-030) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 90 - 5 AAC 05.331. Gillnet specifications and operations; and 5 AAC 01.220. Lawful gear and gear specifications. Prohibit subsistence and commercial gillnets over 6 inch mesh size as follows:

No commercial or subsistence gill nets with a stretched mesh larger than 6” shall be allowed in entire Yukon River drainage.

ISSUE: Larger mesh size nets have had a detrimental effect on the stock composition and quality of escapements for Yukon River Chinook salmon and target the larger female Chinook salmon. There have been continued poor returns of Yukon River Chinook salmon in the majority of years since 1998. This has led to conservation concerns on the spawning grounds on the quality of the escapement. These poorer returns are also not allowing subsistence users to have a

- 91 - reasonable opportunity to meet their subsistence salmon needs. The use of the larger gillnets has changed, and will continue to change, the composition of the Chinook stocks harvested. Subsistence fishermen in the middle and upper Yukon Rivers have repeatedly noted that the returning Chinook salmon are getting smaller and conservation measures are needed to protect the larger fish that in turns protects the genetic variability and loss of the older age classes of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks. Chinook salmon harvest in Y5 and Y6 with fish wheels is over 70 percent precocious males under 10 pounds. In the Taku River in Southeast Alaska the directed commercial fishery was closed for 30 years when this happened. The Tozitna River fishery monitoring project (BLM) is one example showing that the composition of Chinook salmon escapement is heavily skewed toward smaller, male fish or jacks. The Rapids Student Data Collection Project at Yukon River mile 730 has randomly sampled over 5000 Chinook (from fish wheels) from 2004 to 2008 with an average weight of a little more than 11 ½ lbs. In 2008 out of 1137 Chinook sampled only 2.1% (24 fish) were over 25 lbs, and .5% (6 fish) were over 30lbs. Even smaller average weights of under 10 lbs were seen at Eagle near the Canadian border with a 2006 sampling effort. In 2008 Canadian government Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) test fishing showed female Chinook salmon represented only 23% of the seasons fish wheel catch with females representing only 13% in the early part of the run. The early period is recognized as the hardest hit and most fished in the U.S. portion of the river. The number of female Chinook salmon caught in the DFO net test fishery (used nets with an 8 inch mesh size) represented only 28% of the total catch.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is attempting to improve the quality of the resource harvested by conserving the resource. In 2008 Chinook harvests were limited to subsistence only with severe restrictions even on that and Canadian border passage was still not met for second year in a row. All returning Chinook salmon and the especially important larger female salmon will be provided additional opportunity to reach their spawning grounds which would help improve the quality of escapement of Chinook salmon throughout the Yukon River drainage. Passage of this proposal would address the genetic shift to smaller fish caused by targeting the larger fish that has gone on for many years. Local subsistence users and fishery projects on the Yukon River, including Canada, are reporting harvesting smaller fish. Conservation actions are necessary now to protect the genetic variability, the integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks, and the future sustainability of these stocks for future generations.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen, subsistence and commercial, will benefit by helping to rebuild the genetic variability and integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks for future generations of fishermen across the drainage. Stabilizing the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks and preventing a decrease in their size is the right step for the fisheries and is good for the Alaskan subsistence lifestyle and the Canadian aboriginal lifestyle in the future.

- 92 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those fishermen whose priority is the immediate harvest of the largest fish at hand. The proposers are keenly aware passage of this proposal would place restrictions on users but the conservation concern of the genetic impacts of continued over fishing and targeting the larger female fish needs to be addressed now in order to protect the Yukon River Chinook salmon runs for needs in the future. As of 2008 Yukon fishermen have lost all their allowed Chinook commercial fishing time and have had severe restrictions put on basic Chinook subsistence harvests. Fish camps and the healthy lifestyle that goes along with them have continued disappearing as the Chinook fishery economics evaporate due to high fuel costs and low harvest numbers. This has all taken place simply because there are not enough fish anymore. Any seasonal suffering caused by the Board of Fish passing this proposal would be small compared to what has taken place already from inaction.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Nets in the 7” range were considered in past Board cycles however a number of reasons were discovered why they were not suitable. 1) A USFWS study (An Investigation of the Potential Effects of Selective Exploitation on the Demography and Productivity of Yukon River Chinook Salmon, Bromaghin, Nielson, and Hard) showed 7.5” mesh to be ineffective at reversing declining size trends and can actually contribute to the problem. 2) Current ongoing mesh size studies by ADF&G and anecdotal info from fishermen river wide show nets of the 7” range actually catching more fish and more lbs of Chinook than the more normally used 8- 9” nets and the smaller 6” range nets. Fishermen in the upper river commonly are reporting most Chinook going through the larger nets. This is clearly because of the lack of the larger fish at present. Targeting the next available largest Chinook age class with 7” range nets will only further damage the run. Proposers feel it would be best at this point to leave the mesh size at unlimited (commonly 8-9”) if the 6” is not approved by Board.

PROPOSED BY: Co-authored by: Tanana Rampart Manley AC, Eastern Interior Regional Advisory Council, Fairbanks AC, Minto-Nenana AC, and Ruby AC (HQ-09F-029) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 91 - 5 AAC 05.362. Yukon River Summer Chum Salmon Management Plan. Limit commercial king harvest during chum directed fisheries as follows:

The bycatch harvest of Chinook salmon during commercial chum directed fisheries shall be set at 3000 fish (1999-2008 average incidental harvest of Chinook salmon was 2,300 fish; 2004-2008: 4,600 Chinook salmon) until such time that border escapements into Canada are achieved for one full life salmon cycle (six years). Upon reaching the quota number all commercial chum salmon directed fisheries shall be closed for the remainder of the summer chum season.

ISSUE: During the directed commercial fishery for Yukon River chum salmon there is a bycatch of Chinook salmon that needs the attention of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. In 2008 approximately 4600 Chinook salmon were harvested as bycatch during the summer chum commercial fisheries and sold. With the low price for chum and the high price for Chinook salmon, the buyers and fishermen were targeting Chinook salmon for commercial sale. This commercial harvest of Chinook salmon needs to be managed especially during times like these when every returning Chinook salmon is important to meet escapement, U.S./Canada Agreement requirements, and for subsistence needs. Without management guidelines, Yukon River Chinook

- 93 - salmon will continue to have an unregulated commercial fishery and create an incentive to harvest critical Canadian bound Chinook salmon during the chum directed fisheries.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Declining Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks will continue to decline because of the increase harvest above subsistence needs for the lower river fishing districts. A commercial harvest of Yukon River Chinook as bycatch with directed commercial chum fisheries will continue to threaten efforts to rebuild the Yukon River Chinook stocks so that in the future the needs of escapement and subsistence are met throughout Alaskan portion of the river and State of Alaska meets its requirements with Canada.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of the resource harvested would be improved because with sound management guidelines the fisheries managers will be able to protect the Yukon River Chinook salmon during times of conservation concern and rebuilding while allowed commercial harvest of abundant chum salmon. The Yukon River Chinook escapement quality should improve because the bycatch numbers should be factored into the Yukon River Chinook management regime. The quality of future subsistence harvests may improve because of the improved quality of escapement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All would benefit from the sound management of the Yukon River Chinook in-river bycatch.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those whose interests are on the immediate unregulated financial gain from the sale of Yukon River Chinook salmon harvested as bycatch.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (HQ-09F-045) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 92 - 5 AAC 05.362. Yukon River Summer Chum Salmon Management Plan. Prohibit sale of kings during non-king directed fisheries as follows:

No commercial sales of Chinook salmon caught in non Chinook directed commercial fisheries in entire Yukon River drainage. Chinook salmon caught as bycatch shall go into the subsistence fishery only.

ISSUE: Chinook bycatch commercial sales. Currently there is economic incentive to take Chinook salmon bycatch in chum salmon only directed commercial openings. There is no incentive to avoid them, as all Chinook bycatch is allowed to be sold. This has the effect of increasing Chinook take at the very time when severe conservation measures may be in effect for Chinook. In 2008 during the chum salmon directed openings this was the case. Presently managers are working with processors and fishers to voluntarily not sell or buy Chinook but this needs to be put in regulation.

- 94 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? During chum only directed commercial openings some fishers will continue to view Chinook as a valuable money fish and deliberately target them as their value exceeds the chum salmon. This can go contrary to the same season efforts of fishermen and managers to conserve declining Chinook stocks. It is a known that chum and Chinook have different travel habits and frequent different areas. Pulse peaks of the different species are often in different areas of the river and fishers can often avoid or target a species with all this knowledge. Depending on the gear used for harvest (driftnets), some fishers can take advantage of this situation all too easily.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal is attempting to improve the quality and the amount of the resource harvested by conserving the resource. In 2008 Chinook harvests were limited to subsistence only with severe restrictions even on that and Canadian border passage was still not met for second year in a row. Passage of this proposal would eliminate the commercial incentive to target Chinook salmon thereby allowing the returning Chinook salmon and the especially important larger female salmon additional opportunity to reach their spawning grounds which would help improve the quality of escapement of chinook salmon throughout the Yukon River drainage. Passage of this proposal would also address the genetic shift to smaller fish caused by over fishing and the years of targeting the larger fish. Local subsistence users and fishery monitoring projects in the upper Yukon River area, including Canada, are reporting harvesting smaller fish. Immediate conservation actions are necessary now to protect the genetic variability, the integrity of the Yukon River chinook salmon stocks, and the future sustainability of the resource to provide for future generations of fishermen, both subsistence and commercial.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The proposers feel all fishers in the drainage will benefit except those whose priority is the immediate harvest and commercial sale of fish at hand. Subsistence and commercial users will benefit by helping to rebuild the genetic variability and integrity of the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks for future generations of fishers across the drainage. Stabilizing the Yukon River Chinook salmon stocks and preventing a decrease in their size is the right step for the fisheries and is good for the subsistence lifestyle in Alaska and the Canadian aboriginal lifestyle the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those fishers whose priority is the immediate harvest of fish at hand for commercial sale. The proposers are keenly aware passage of this proposal would place restrictions on users but the conservation concern of the genetic impacts of continued over fishing needs to be addressed now in order to protect the Yukon River Chinook salmon runs for needs in the future. As of 2008 Yukon fishers have lost all their allowed Chinook commercial fishing time and have had severe restrictions placed on basic Chinook subsistence needs. Fish camps and the healthy lifestyle that goes along with them have continued to disappear as the Chinook subsistence fishery economy evaporates due to high fuel prices and poor harvest rates. This has all taken place simply because there are not enough fish anymore. Any seasonal suffering caused by Board of Fish passing of this proposal would be small compared to what has taken place already from inaction.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None others considered in this area.

- 95 - PROPOSED BY: Co-authored by: Tanana Rampart Manley AC, Eastern Interior Regional Advisory Council, Fairbanks AC, Minto-Nenana AC, and Ruby AC (HQ-09F-031) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 93 - 5 AAC 05.360. Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan. Prohibit retention of kings during chum directed main stem fisheries as follows:

In commercial openings on the main stem of the Yukon River in District 1 through 5 for an other- directed species, chum salmon (Oncorhypcus kota) i.e. a fisherman or fisherwoman participating in those directed fisheries may neither retain nor sell any king salmon he or she bycatches in those directed fishery openings.

( I personally do not object to this proposed regulation for District 6 (Tanana River) as well, but Alaska State management biologist advise us that the Tanana River king salmon run statistics are satisfactory.)

ISSUE: The problem is some years inadequate numbers of Yukon River, “main stem” king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) make it to any of the Canadian spawning areas to satisfactorily replenish the Yukon River main stem run – Yukon River main stem king salmon runs in 2007 and 2008 for instance. And of those depleted numbers that make it to the Canadian spawning grounds the age class configurations and sex ratios differ from those of “healthy” runs.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The subject run abundance, age class configuration and sex ratio vectors will, already have and will continue to display deteriorating trends.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? If this proposed regulation is adopted and it successfully acts as an incentive to lower king salmon commercial bycatch in Yukon River directed fisheries, then all those who rely on the Yukon River king salmon resource will likely benefit including eventually even the fisherman or fisherwoman who is deprived of his or her bycatch king salmon.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The fisherman or fisherwoman who is denied the opportunity to retain or sell his or her bycatch king salmon and the family, if any of those fishermen or fisherwomen, will, in the short term at least, likely suffer.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? My proposed solution is but one of a number of solutions that will be required to return the Yukon River main stem, Canadian-bound king salmon run to its former numbers, age class configuration and habitat fecundity-replenishing role.

PROPOSED BY: Jude Henzler (HQ-09F-019) ******************************************************************************

- 96 - PROPOSAL 94 - 5 AAC 05.360. Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan. Require windows schedule during lower river commercial fishery as follows:

Repeal 5 AAC 05.360(e) (managers must stick to the window schedule)

ISSUE: When the BOF established 5 AAC 05.360(d) it did not intend for it to be circumvented. The department had this put in regulation in January 2004. As soon as there is a commercial opening the department throws the windows out the window.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We will continue to have 7 day a week fishing in the Lower Yukon.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The salmon will have closures so they can travel up the river unmolested. The board determined in January 2001 that reasonable opportunity was.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-057) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 95 - 5 AAC 05.360. Yukon River King Salmon Management Plan. Reallocate commercial king salmon harvest as follows:

5 AAC 05.360(b)(2): the department shall manage the Yukon River commercial king salmon fishery for a guideline harvest range of 0 - 60,000 [67,350 – 129,150] king salmon distributed as follows: (A) District 1 and 2: 0 - 26,700 [60,000 – 120,000] king salmon; (B) District 3: 0-8,000 set net only [1,800 – 2,200] king salmon; (C) District 4: 0-8,000 [2,250 – 2,850] king salmon; (D) District 5 (i) Subdistrict 5-B and 5-C: 0-8,000 [2,400 – 2,800] king salmon; (ii) Subdistrict 5-D: 0-1,300 [300 – 500] king salmon; and (E) District 6: 0-8,000 [600 – 800] king salmon; (3) when the king salmon harvest range for Districts 1-6 combined is below the low end harvest level from zero to 60,000 [67,350] fish, the department shall allocate the commercial harvest available by percentage for each district as follows: (A) District 1 and 2: 44.5 [89.1] percent; (B) District 3: 13.33 [2.7] percent set net only; (C) District 4: 13.33 [3.3] percent; (D) Subdistrict 5-B and 5-C: 13.33 [3.6] percent; (E) Subdistrict 5-D: 2.16 [0.4] percent; and

- 97 - (F) District 6: 13.33 [0.9] percent.

ISSUE: The Yukon River lower river fishing districts, Y1 and Y2, are allocated 89 percent of the commercial harvest. In order to prosecute the commercial fishery in accordance with the allocation scheme, the manager is required to start the fishery prior to having a valid assessment of the strength of the run. This does not align with sound fisheries management and common sense. It has contributed to the collapse of the Chinook salmon run and the United states not meeting the Canadian border passage goals of the treaty with Canada.

Very few Chinook salmon originate in districts Y1 and Y2, the Andreafsky River being the only river and it is closed to commercial fishing. This violates a well known international agreement that the country of the salmon’s origin has primary interest in ownership of the salmon. The same should apply for the area of origin for Yukon River salmon and it does not. For example, between 30-40 percent of the Chinook salmon that enter the Yukon River originate from the Tanana River, however the commercial allocation for the Tanana River originate from the Tanana River, however the commercial allocation for the Tanana River is .9 of the percent while districts Y1 and Y2 is allocated 89 percent of the commercial harvest. In 2006 and 2007, districts Y1 and Y2 commercially fished while the Tanana River was closed in order to make escapement goals.

In 2008 there were no eight year olds, 0.5 percent seven year olds, and 7.6 percent six year age classes in the escapement at the Tozitna River Wier. The once great run of Chinook salmon in the Yukon River will have no yield thereby violating the State constitutional requirement that they be managed for sustained yield. Upriver subsistence fishermen both in Alaska and in Canada have had a hard time meeting their subsistence needs. In Canada alone, in 2007 & 2008, less than half of the subsistence requirements were met.

The current situation forces the fisheries managers to prosecute the commercial fisheries prior to full assessment of the run. Passage of this proposal would assist the managers to comply with Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC 39.222).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The manager will continue to receive demands and threats form the Y1 and Y2 commercial fishermen to open the commercial fishery. The manager will not be able to manage the fishery in a manner consistent with the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC 39.222). The viability of the Chinook run in the Yukon River will continue to decline.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Spreading the harvest out river wide lessens the impacts to single components of the run and allows greater flexibility for the manager to prosecute fisheries on healthy isolated stocks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen and villages in fishing District 3-6 would benefit with a fairer distribution of the commercial harvest of Yukon River Chinook salmon.

- 98 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen of fishing Districts 1 and 2 might suffer because they would be reduced by 40 percent of their current allocation. In the long run it might benefit them due to the increased incentive to increase the amount of returning salmon to allow then to increase the umber of fish they harvest and sell.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (HQ-09F-044) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 96 - 5 AAC 05.362. Yukon River Summer Chum Salmon Management Plan. Reallocate commercial summer chum salmon harvest as follows:

(f)(1) 180,000-540,000 (2) 24,000-72,000 (3) 120,000-360,000 (4) 36,000-108,000 (5) 4,000-12,000 (6) 36,000-108,000 (g)(A) 45% (B) 6% (C) 30% (D) 9% (E) 1% (F) 9%

ISSUE: The Yukon River summer chum salmon allocation is too high in Districts 1 & 2. This causes the manager to start the fishery prior to having a valid assessment of the strength of the run.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The manager will not be able to manage the fishery in a manner consistent with the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries 5 AAC 39.222.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen in Districts 3 and 6.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fishermen in Districts 1 and 2.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-056) *******************************************************************************

- 99 - PROPOSAL 97 - 5 AAC 05.365. Yukon River fall chum salmon guideline harvest ranges. Reallocate commercial fall chum salmon harvest as follows:

(1) District 1, 2, 3: 21,825-96,000 (2) District 4: 14,550-64,000 (3) Sub District 5 B, C, & D: 14,550-64,000 (4) Sub District 5D: Delete (5) District 6: 21,825-96,000

ISSUE: Unfair allocation of fall chums, no fall chum originate in the Lower Yukon. This causes the managers to start the fishery prior to having a valid assessment of the run strength.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The manager will not be able to manage the fishery in a manner consistent with the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries 5 AAC 39.222.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone due to management.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-054) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 98 - 5 AAC 05.200. Fishing districts and subdistricts. Open commercial fishing between Black River and Chris Point as follows:

Fishing would be permitted for both drift and setnet between Chris Point and Black River (between statistical areas 334-11 & 334-12).

ISSUE: Lack of fishing area on the Lower Yukon Delta.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Crowded fishing. Lack of fishing opportunity fleet stuck in crowded areas.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, would improve quality as fish would be ocean costal as opposed to river run.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users because it will define management objectives.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Y-1 Fishermen.

- 100 -

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-055) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 100 - 5 AAC 74.010. Seasons, bag, possession, and size limits, and methods and means in the Tanana River Management Area. Close the Tok River drainage to sport fishing for salmon as follows:

Close the Tok River drainage to sport fishing for salmon.

(c)(26) in the Tok River drainage (C) sport fishing for salmon is closed;

ISSUE: In 2008, approximately 50 coho salmon were observed in a tributary of the Tok River. Prior to this adult coho salmon had not been documented in the Tok River drainage. This is believed to be a relatively small, discrete stock of coho salmon and may not be able to sustain any level of harvest. This proposal is consistent with regulations in other Tanana River tributaries (Delta River drainage, upper Chatanika, Goodpaster, and Salcha rivers) to protect small salmon stocks or spawning salmon.

- 101 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There is potential for harvests to exceed sustainable levels due to the small number of coho salmon in the Tok River drainage.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Not applicable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The small population of coho salmon in this drainage.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those sport anglers that may target coho salmon in this drainage.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-144) *******************************************************************************

- 102 -

ALASKA PENINSULA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS FINFISH PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL 101 - 5 AAC 28.550. Description of South Alaska Peninsula Area; and 5 AAC 28.600. Description of Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area. Clarify groundfish management area descriptions as follows:

5 AAC 28.550. Description of South Alaska Peninsula Area.

South Alaska Peninsula Area consists of all waters of Alaska in the Pacific Ocean between a line extending 135º southeast from Kupreanof Point (55º 33.98’ N. lat., 159º 35.88’ W. long.) and 170º W. long., including those waters south of the latitude of Nichols Point (54º 51.5’ N. lat.) near False Pass, and south from lines extending from Unimak Island (54º 23.74’ N. lat., 164º 44.73’ W long.) to Akun Island (54º 11.71’ N. lat., 165º 23.09’ W. long.), and from Akun Island (54º 08.40’N. lat., 165º 38.29’ W. long.) to Akutan Island (54º 07.69’ N. lat., 165º 39.74’ W. long.), and from Akutan Island (54º 02.69’ N. lat., 166º 02.93’ W. long.) to Unalaska Island (53º 58.97’ N. lat., 166º 16.50’ W. long.), and from Unalaska Island ( 53º 18.95’ N. lat., 167º 51.06’ W. long.) to Unmak Island (53º 23.13’ N. lat., 167º 50.50’ W. long.), and from Umnak Island (52º 49.24’ N. lat., 169º 07.10’ W. long.) to Chuginakak Island (52º 49.18’ N. lat., 169º 40.47’ W. long.).

5 AAC 28.600. Description of Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area.

The Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area consists of all territorial waters of Alaska in the Bering Sea, including those waters north of the latitude of Nichols Point (54º 51.5’ N. lat) near False Pass, and north from lines extending from Unimak Island (54º 23.74’ N. lat., 164º 44.73’ W long.) to Akun Island (54º 11.71’ N. lat., 165º 23.09’ W. long.), and from Akun Island (54º 08.40’N. lat., 165º 38.29’ W. long.) to Akutan Island (54º 07.69’ N. lat., 165º 39.74’ W. long.), and from Akutan Island (54º 02.69’ N. lat., 166º 02.93’ W. long.) to Unalaska Island (53º 58.97’ N. lat., 166º 16.50’ W. long.), and from Unalaska Island ( 53º 18.95’ N. lat., 167º 51.06’ W. long.) to Unmak Island (53º 23.13’ N. lat., 167º 50.50’ W. long.), and from Umnak Island (52º 49.24’ N. lat., 169º 07.10’ W. long.) to Chuginakak Island (52º 49.18’ N. lat., 169º 40.47’ W. long.) and in that portion of the North Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Aleutian Islands and west of 170º W. long.

ISSUE: In the groundfish fishery, the demarcation line separating the South Alaska Peninsula Area and the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area is not completely defined in regulation.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued difficulty of distinguishing the boundary between South Alaska Peninsula and Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands waters by commercial fishermen, fishery managers, and law enforcement.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Unknown.

- 103 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen, fishery managers, and law enforcement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-121) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 102 - 5 AAC 28.560. Fishing Seasons For South Alaska Peninsula Area; 5 AAC 28.610 Fishing Seasons For Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area; and 5 AAC 28.710. Fishing Seasons for Chukchi-Beaufort Area. Repeal fishing season regulations that allow groundfish to be taken at any time as follows:

5 AAC 28.560 Fishing Seasons for South Alaska Peninsula Area.

(a) repealed [UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS CHAPTER, GROUNDFISH MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME].

5 AAC 28.610 Fishing Seasons for Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area.

(a) repealed [UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS CHAPTER, GROUNDFISH MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME]

5 AAC 28.710. Fishing Seasons for Chukchi-Beaufort Area. repealed [GROUNDFISH MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME]

ISSUE: Current regulations for the South Alaska Peninsula, Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands, and Chukchi-Beaufort areas state that groundfish may be taken at anytime. In practice, groundfish may only be taken from state waters when parallel or state seasons are open. This internal inconsistency has caused confusion among fishermen participating in groundfish fisheries inside state waters.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulations will continue to create confusion for participants in these fisheries, managers and enforcement agencies.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public and agencies will benefit from clear and consistent regulatory language.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

- 104 -

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-122) *******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal was previously considered by the board during 2006/2007 meeting cycle. It was tabled to the board's Joint Board/Council Protocol Committee for additional review and scheduled for the 2009/2010 meeting cycle for possible adoption.

PROPOSAL 103 - 5 AAC 28.577. South Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan. Limit vessel size to 58 feet in the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery as follows:

The commissioner shall open and close, by emergency order, the parallel season during which the use of vessels larger than 58-feet is prohibited.

ISSUE: Bering Sea crab rationalization has allowed large vessels to delay the harvest of crab in January-February, until after they have cleaned up the federal/state parallel Pacific cod season quota of Western Gulf area 610. These vessels fish pots and harvest high 90s of state waters Pacific cod which they need no LLP’s for.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More large crab pot vessels will fish the federal/state parallel Pacific cod season of Western Gulf area 610 before moving on to Opilio as well as large pot boats without LLP's.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will cause a slower rate of harvest.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? 58-foot vessels and local communities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Large pot vessels.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: King Cove Advisory Committee (HQ-09F-011) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 104 - 5 AAC 28.570. Lawful gear for South Alaska Peninsula. Limit vessel size to 58 feet in the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery as follows:

There will be a 58 foot limit on all parallel fisheries in state waters in the South Alaska Peninsula.

ISSUE: South Peninsula fishermen continue to lose quota to larger non-local boats.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local South Peninsula fishermen will continue to lose quota and fishing opportunities.

- 105 -

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen and communities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? A few large non-local boats that don’t have LLP’s.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-101) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 105 - 5 AAC 28.570. Lawful gear for South Alaska Peninsula. Exclude longline gear from the South Alaska Peninsula Area parallel groundfish fishery as follows:

Exclude all longline gear on parallel fisheries in state waters of the South Peninsula.

ISSUE: in 2009 an influx of non-local longliners took 40% of the federal A quota.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local fishermen will continue to lose quota and fishing opportunities to non-local boats.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local fishermen, processors and communities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Longline fishermen who don’t have LLP’s for Area 610.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-100) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 106 - 5 AAC 28.570. Lawful gear for South Alaska Peninsula Area. Implement a 60 pot or 5 jig machine limit in the parallel Pacific cod fishery in the Western Gulf of Alaska as follows:

Lawful gear for Western Gulf of Alaska parallel fishery [SOUTH ALASKA PENINSULA]. We would like to see a 60 pot or 5 jig machine limit on the parallel waters fishery.

ISSUE: If and when the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council decides to give cod endorsements on L.L.P.’s the possibility exists for a large and for the most part unregulated influx of boats and gear into state waters.

- 106 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Localized depletion of cod stocks, major gear conflicts and the possibility of lost tax revenue if catcher-processors fish the area and offload their product elsewhere.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local residents and communities, also local cod stocks should benefit by not getting over-fished by an unregulated fishing fleet. Right now the federal fishing fleet doesn’t have any gear restrictions on them.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Longliners that don’t qualify for a cod endorsement on the L.L.P.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A 58 foot limit in state waters, but that proposal is currently tabled by the board.

PROPOSED BY: Dale Pedersen (SC-09F-007) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 107 - 5 AAC 28.577 (b) (e) (g). South Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan. Modify allowable gear and vessel size for the parallel Pacific cod fishery in the South Alaska Peninsula Area as follows:

5 AAC 28.577 (b) Each year the commissioner… The commissioner shall open and close, by emergency order, the parallel season during which the use permitted or restricted gear shall fall under 5 AAC 28.050 or 5 AAC 28.570. (e) During the state waters season and state waters parallel season, (g) DELETE

ISSUE: If the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council enacts regulation to permit cod endorsements on LLP’s it will be inevitable a large, and for the most part unregulated, influx of fishing effort with unregulated gear restrictions will occur inside Alaska state waters (inside 3 miles from offshore).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Localized depletion of cod stocks. Lost and diverted fishing revenue for the local and permanent small boat fishermen.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Size of vessels, limits on gear, and a predominate local fleet side with improved quality issues. Local fleet deliver and stay in town more. Local vessels are limited to fish in calmer weather, keeping fish from being washing machined in the vessels tanks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The local commercial fishing fleets that rely on these species for income and survival in the small towns on the Alaska peninsula and Aleutian Islands.

- 107 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The larger vessels are predominately a transient fleet, hitting open season all along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? State of Alaska to remove the parallel season management plan and become responsible over state waters totally.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Peninsula Coastal Fisheries Association (SC-09F-010) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 108 - 5 AAC 28.577. South Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan. Increase the guideline harvest level in the South Alaska Peninsula Area state-waters Pacific cod management plan as follows:

(e)(1) the guideline harvest level for Pacific cod in the South Alaska Peninsula area is 50 [15] percent of the estimated total allowable harvest of Pacific cod for the federal Western Gulf of Alaska Area.

ISSUE: We would like more cod quota moved into the Area M state waters cod fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local fishermen will continue to lose fishing opportunities to large outside crabbers, longliners and trawlers in the federal fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local small boat cod fishermen in Area M.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point Advisory Committee (HQ-09F-010) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 109 - 5 AAC 28.577(e). South Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan. Increase the guideline harvest level in the South Alaska Peninsula Area state-waters Pacific cod management plan as follows:

During a state waters season, the guideline harvest lever for P-cod in Area M is 50% of the TAC of P-cod for Area 610.

- 108 - ISSUE: Large vessels with crab rationalized quotas had higher harvest rates of p-cod during the past fed and state parallel seasons in Area 610. The probability of P-cod rationalization by NPMC in Area 610 will take P-cod stocks in state waters away from state.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More vessels will fish P-cod in federal and state parallel season of Area 610 before moving on to fish their crab rationalized quotas of the Bering Sea.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It will cause a slower rate of harvest and promote a “cleaner” harvest because of gear type allowed.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Small local vessels.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Large vessels.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: King Cove AC (SW-09F-016) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 110 - 5 AAC 28.577. South Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan. Implement a 7-day stand down period as follows:

In order to fish in the Area M state cod fishery the vessel cannot begin fishing until 7 days has elapsed since the closure of the Federal cod season they have participate in.

ISSUE: NPMC has made changes in the Bering Sea Federal pot cod HGL that has caused increased effort by 58 ft. pot boats in the Area M state waters cod fishery. The Area M state cod fishery has been fully allocated since its inception. The WGOA und 58 ft vessels are required to stand down for 7 days after the Fed season closes prior to fishing in Area M state cod season. Those boats that fish in the Bering Sea Fed season can enter the Area M state fishery without a stand down period. The increased effort to 10% of the 2009 Area M state GHL.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The under 58 ft. pot vessels fishing the Bering Sea Federal season will not have to stand down the 7 days after the Bering Sea closure. This will continue to be increased effort in the Area M state fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those vessels that have waited the 7 days between Federal and state cod season.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those vessels that are able to move immediately from a Federal season to the Area M state cod season.

- 109 -

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: King Cove AC (SW-09F-014) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 111 - 5 AAC 28.650. Closed waters in the Bering Sea – Aleutian Islands area. Close the waters of Unalaska Bay to groundfish fishing with trawl gear as follows:

5 AAC 28.650 (b) All waters of Unalaska Bay from a point at (54º 00.314’ lat., 166º 37.674 W long.) to Cape Kalckta (54º 00.50’ N lat., 166º 22.50 W long.) are closed to commercial fishing for groundfish with trawl gear.

ISSUE: The Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Advisory Committee would like to see waters of Unalaska Bay closed to commercial fishing for groundfish trawl gear form a point at (54º 00.314’ lat., 166º 37.674 W long.) to Cape Kalckta (54º 00.50’ N lat., 166º 22.50 W long.). This area is a part of the Bering Sea Pollock Restriction Area and is only open to Pollock pelagic trawling by catcher vessels during the Pollock B groundfish with pelagic trawl gear. Trawling inside of Unalaska Bay has been an issue for local residents in this community for many years. Unalaska Bay has not been an area that the Pollock trawl fleet has traditionally used or depended on. But in the last few years, as Pollock stocks have moved further to the north, during the B season, we have seen trawlers come into Unalaska Bay either to top off a load, or to see if they might get lucky and get a tank of fish out of Unalaska Bay.

The concern for the local residents is that the influx of large trawlers into this very small area during the summer time has impacted local residents who are engaged in commercial, subsistence, and sport fishing activities in the Unalaska Bay area. The concerns we have heard are of salmon and halibut bycatch by trawl vessels that are trawling adjacent to some of the most productive and largest river systems in the Aleutian Islands, just as the returns of red, pink and silver salmon are coming into the Unalaska Bay area. We have also heard of concerns by residents of gear conflicts, habitat impacts and lost gear in the Unalaska Bay area during this time of year. Unalaska Bay is currently closed year round to on pelagic trawling (5 AAC 39.164).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Unalaska Bay will continue to see an influx of large trawlers into this very small area between June 10 and November 1 that will continue to impact local residents who are engaged in commercial, subsistence and sport fishing activities in the Unalaska Bay. These vessels are trawling adjacent to some of Unalaska Island’s most productive and largest river systems. Local residents that fish in this area will continue to have concerns of bycatch of salmon and halibut as well as gear conflicts, habitat impacts and lost gear in the Unalaska Bay area during this time of year.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal may reduce habitat impacts, bycatch of salmon, halibut, herring and other species in Unalaska Bay and may have a positive impact on habitat, subsistence, sport and commercial fishing activities in this area.

- 110 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Unalaska residents and others that are engaged in subsistence, sport and non-Pollock commercial fishing activities in Unalaska Bay area.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Pollock catcher vessels that fish Unalaska Bay during the Pollock B season.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Unalaska/Dutch Harbor AC (HQ-09F-034) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 112 - 5 AAC 28.632. Groundfish Pot Storage Requirements for Bering Sea- Aleutian Islands Area, Modify groundfish pot storage requirements as follows:

5 AAC 28.632. Groundfish Pot Storage Requirements for Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area.

(a) Rectangular groundfish pots with all bait and bait containers removed and with all doors secured fully open, and cone or pyramid groundfish pots with all bait and bait containers removed and all doors not secured closed may be stored in waters not more than 25 fathoms deep. (b) Following the closure of a parallel or state waters season for groundfish all groundfish pot gear used by a vessel registered to fish for groundfish must be removed from the water, except that (1) rectangular and cone or pyramid groundfish pots may be stored as described in (a) of this section; or (2) rectangular groundfish pots with all bait and bait containers removed and with all doors secured fully open, and cone or pyramid groundfish pots with all bait and bait containers removed and all doors not secured closed may be stored in waters more than 25 fathoms deep for seven days following the closure.

ISSUE: The current pot storage regulation does not specify the amount of time a vessel operator has to move pot gear into storage after a fishery closure in the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Area.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue address the issue of post-season gear storage on a case by case basis.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessels utilizing pot gear.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

- 111 -

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-123) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 113 - 5 AAC 28.647. Aleutian Islands District Pacific Cod Management Plan. Specify that pot gear may be fished on a longline as follows:

5 AAC 28.647. Aleutian Islands District Pacific Cod Management Plan.

(d)(2) Pacific cod may be taken only with groundfish pots, mechanical jigging machines, longline, non-pelagic trawl, and hand troll gear. Pot gear may be longlined or fished single- pot fashion;

ISSUE: The Aleutian Islands District Pacific cod management plan does not address longlining of pot gear although the department has allowed the practice since the fishery began in 2006.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Department regulations will not reflect the current allowable practice of longlining pot gear.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Vessels utilizing pot gear will benefit from clear regulations that accurately reflect ADF&G harvest strategy.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-124) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 114 - 5 AAC 28.647. Aleutian Islands District Pacific Cod Management Plan. Allow pot vessels 100 feet or less to participate in the B season as follows:

Pot vessels 100’ and under may harvest P-cod in the State water, P-cod, B Season, in the Aleutian Islands District west of the 170º W if less than 50% of the available GHL has been harvested by August 1.

ISSUE: There is a high probability that vessels 60’ and under will be unable to take substantial portion of the P-cod available in the State water, P-cod, B season in the Aleutian Islands District west of 170º.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A substantial portion of the P-cod available under this GHL may not be harvested.

- 112 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Pot vessels 60-100’.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Daniel T. Gunn (SW-09F-020) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 115 - 5 AAC 09.355. Salmon processor and buyer reporting requirements. Require participation in a chum pool as follows:

Add the following to 5 AAC 09.355 If the intended operation includes participation in the South Unimak and Shumagin Island June Salmon Fishery the report must also include a "letter of intent" that the operator will participate in a Chum Pool. Also add a definition. Chum Pool - A means to equate compensation to harvesters of chum salmon. There shall be a separate pool for each gear group and each processing operation. The pool should be structured in such a way as to discourage the harvest of chums for individual financial gain

ISSUE: Several new processors that purchased salmon in the June South Unimak and Shumagin Island fishery in 2008 did not participate in a chum pool. All of the long time processors have participated for many years. It is likely that the new processors were unaware of the chum pools. Adding language to the reporting regulation that either requires or encourages chum pools would help to inform new processors of the practice.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? New processors in June fishery will not know about or participate in chum pools.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fisherman that already participate in chum pools.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Area M fisherman who target chums in June for financial gain.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Concerned Area M Fishermen (HQ-09F-071) *******************************************************************************

- 113 - PROPOSAL 116 - 5 AAC 09.365. South Unimak and Shumagin Islands June Salmon Management Plan; and 5 AAC 09.369. Northern District Salmon Fisheries Management Plan. Reinstate the 8.3 percent allocation of the pre-season Bristol Bay sockeye salmon forecast as follows:

The combined sockeye salmon catch in the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands June fishery and the Northern Peninsula District salmon fishery before July 15th is not to exceed 8.3 percent of the total predicted Bristol Bay harvest.

ISSUE: Limit the intercept of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon and the expansion of the northern Peninsula District mixed stock intercept fishery by reinstating the 8.3 percent allocation of Bristol Bay sockeye guideline in the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands June Salmon Management Plan and the Northern District Salmon Fisheries Management Plan.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Over harvesting of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon stocks resulting in escapement goals not being met.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Bristol Bay specific stocks that may be overharvested.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Kurt Johnson (HQ-09F-152) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 117 - 5 AAC 09.331(a)(b). Gillnet specifications and operations. Modify the depth of drift and set gillnet gear as follows:

5 AAC 09.331(a) – delete reference to the Unimak and Southwestern Districts in subsection (3) and add a new subsection as follows: “in the Unimak and Southwestern Districts, no drift gillnet may exceed 120 meshes during the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands fisheries described in 5 AAC 09.365.”

5 AAC 09.331(b)(1) – delete reference to the Unimak, Southwestern, South Central, and Southeastern Districts in subsection (1)(C) and add a new subsection as follows: “in the Unimak, Southwestern, South Central, and Southeastern Districts, a set gillnet may not exceed 120 meshes in depth during the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands fisheries described in 5 AAC 09.365.”

ISSUE: Drift and set gillnet depth restrictions in the June Fishery do not allow the use of efficient gear necessary to target sockeye during established openings.

- 114 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drift and set gillnetters will continue to forego economic opportunity in the June Fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by allowing more efficient harvest of sockeye by drift and set gillnets during openings in the June Fishery.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift and set gillnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? There may be some reallocation of sockeye to gillnet fishermen from the seine fleet.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Increasing the length of gillnets was considered, but rejected in favor of fishing deeper in the water column.

PROPOSED BY: Concerned Area M Fishermen (HQ-09F-069) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 118 - 5 AAC 09.366(d). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

Amend 5 AAC 09.366 to read as follows: “(d) Notwithstanding (c)(1) of this section, the commissioner may establish, by emergency order, three [SIX] 24-hour fishing periods interspersed by 48 hour closures from July 6 through July 14 [21], and 48-hour fishing periods interspersed by 24 hour closures from July 15 through July 31 [THREE 36-HOUR FISHING PERIODS INTERSPERSED BY 48 HOUR CLOSURES FROM JULY 22 THROUGH JULY 31].”

ISSUE: Drift and set gillnetters do not have enough fishing time in the Post-June Fishery to efficiently harvest abundant pink salmon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drift and set gillnetters will continue to forego economic opportunity for harvesting pink salmon.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Drift and set gillnetters will have better opportunity to harvest high quality pink salmon.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Drift and set gillnetters, including local fleets; processors, which will receive a higher quality fish; and local communities, which will receive more revenue from fish taxes.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other variations of the schedule were considered but rejected because they did not provide the right balance between affording gillnetters more

- 115 - opportunity to harvest pink salmon while achieving the goals of the Post-June Fishery management plan.

PROPOSED BY: Concerned Area M Fishermen (HQ-09F-072) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 119 - 5 AAC 09.366(D). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

July season will begin July 6th and will open from 6 am to 6 pm, close for 12 hours and reopen July 7th from 6 am to 6 pm then it will close for 36 hours. This shall be repeated until July 20th and on July 21st will open for the current 36-hour openers. (Set gillnet fishing will remain open during the 12 hour closures)

ISSUE: The management plan does not allow seiners to move from one area to another with the current calendar, nor does it allow enough daylight hours for fishing.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Seiners will continue to be restricted in their movement from area to area and will not have enough fishing time during daylight hours.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Unknown.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The seiners and set gillnet fishermen who fish the local stocks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 48 hour openings with 36 hour closures. The proposed openings have the same amount of hours opened and closed as the current plan.

PROPOSED BY: Melvin R. Larsen (HQ-09F-016) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 120 - 5 AAC 09.366(d). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

July openings will be 48 hours of fishing followed by a 24 hour closure for the entire month.

ISSUE: The Post-June South Peninsula Management Plan allows 10 days of fishing for the month of July. Considering weather days and timing of tides often it is less than adequate time to allow the harvest opportunity of salmon that have been a part of the fishery in the past.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be lost opportunity to harvest salmon in July.

- 116 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, salmon harvested outside the terminal areas are typically higher quality..

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M salmon fishermen and processors.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? There are migrating and local salmon in the South Peninsula during July. The harvest of mixed stocks is done throughout the state. Area M has historically harvested mixed stocks in July. Measureable impacts to a particular stock is unlikely.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Different times of opening and closures.

PROPOSED BY: King Cove AC (SW-09F-013) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 121 - 5 AAC 09.366(d). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula Emergency Order. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

Change section (d) to say three days on and two days off starting July 6.

ISSUE: Changing scheduled openings in July.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued poorly scheduled openings will remain in place. The way openings are scheduled now, a lot of fuel is wasted running back and forth for short openings.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. It will be easier to schedule delivery times for all fishermen with longer openings, therefore improving quality.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Area M fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Five days on and two days off like it used to be. Rejected because we are trying to have conservative openings scheduled.

PROPOSED BY: Danny Cumberlidge (SC-09F-004) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 122 - 5 AAC 09.366(d). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

5 AAC 09.366(d) (1) The set gillnetters fishing period shall commence 14 hours before the scheduled opening times set by emergency order during the month of July.

- 117 -

(d) (2) Set gillnet commercial fishing fleet shall only be closed in between fishing periods in the month of July for 34 hours.

ISSUE: Short July openings for the set gillnet fleet in the south Alaska Peninsula. This regulation is to conserve migrating coho salmon, of which the set gillnet fleet has non-impact on. Fishing time is crucial for the set gillnet fleet. It is a predominant stationary fleet, relying on perfect conditions from the weather and tide to have a successful catch. Extending the hours of each July opening will provide a little time to their periods.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will be lost revenue of high quality fish, by being open in the daylight hours for the majority of the period and displacement of traditional catch history from the set gillnet fleet to the seine and drift fleet.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. By opening 14 hours before the scheduled period, the set gillnet fleet is opening in the morning; they will be on the nets during daylight hours, tending them for high quality salmon by keeping them clean.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local set gillnet fishermen who rely heavily on the time in the South Peninsula July fisheries.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Alternating the opening / closure with the seine and drift fleet. There will be gear in the water at all times, no windows for traveling salmon.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Peninsula Coastal Fishermen Association (SC-09F-009) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 123 - 5 AAC 09.366(d). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula Emergency order. Modify the Post-June Salmon Management Plan fishing schedule as follows:

Add language to section (d) saying starting July 6, six 24 hour openers interspersed with 48 hour closures through July 21, and three 36 hour interspersed by 48 hour closures from July 22 through July 31 for purse seine and driftnet fishermen. Set net fishermen will be able to fish during the 48 hour closures everywhere including East Popof between Dark Cliffs and Popof Head.

ISSUE: Changing post-June openings for Area M set netters.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A lack of fishing time for set netters will lead to more economic troubles for set net fishermen. At the last board meeting for Area M, we almost got two days on and two days off, but seiners didn’t like the proposed schedule because of too many dark hours for them.

- 118 -

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Longer openings for set netters will be easier to schedule tender pickups.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Area M set netters and tendermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Trying to get some openers in the SEDM before seiners can go on July 11, so the openings won’t be so short. Rejected because it seems that ADF&G doesn’t want us fishing the SEDM.

PROPOSED BY: Dale Pedersen (SC-09F-006) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 124 - 5 AAC 09.366. Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Address current commercial salmon fishing opportunity as follows:

Expand opportunity to harvest local chum and pink salmon stocks during July.

ISSUE: The lack of fishing openings and opportunities in the Area M July fisheries.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local fishermen will continue losing money and fishing opportunities.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Local chum and pink salmon could be harvested before they get dark.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen who fish in Area M.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-108) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 125 - 5 AAC 09.366(f). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Allow commercial salmon fishing in all terminal areas as follows:

Add the areas in 5 AAC 09.366(g) to the areas listed in 5 AAC 09.366(f) so that all these terminal areas could possibly be opened on July 6th, if fish are present.

ISSUE: We would like the board to add the areas in 5 AAC 09.366(g) to the areas listed in 5 AAC 09.366(f) so that all these terminal areas could possibly be opened on July 6th, if fish are present.

- 119 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Area M fishermen will continue losing fishing opportunities.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Could provide an opportunity to harvest local fish before they get water marked

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen, processors and communities.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? More fishing time in July would also help.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-107) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 126 - 5 AAC 09.366(F). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Extend the existing terminal areas as follows:

Extend the existing terminal areas to include the South Central District, the Southwestern District and parts of the Southeastern District.

ISSUE: The current terminal harvest areas opened from July 6-31 do not allow purse seiners to harvest local stocks due to the shoals and shallow waters in these areas.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The harvesting of local stocks will not take place when the quality of the salmon is high and marketable. Processors will continue to pay very low prices or reject the salmon because of poor quality.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, salmon will be harvested wile they are high in quality and the processors consider them marketable.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Area M fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Considered asking for the entire SE Mainland district to be opened. Rejected this idea because the area is currently under another management plan.

PROPOSED BY: Melvin R. Larsen (HQ-09F-017) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 127 - 5 AAC 09.366. Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Repeal the immature salmon test fishery or increase the threshold as follows:

- 120 - Eliminate the test fishing completely, or raise the amount of immature per set. 700-800 set. Chiknik doesn’t even get checked and sometimes their nets are full of immature. What’s the reasoning if not political?

ISSUE: The immature problem, in which the state tests for immature, we are the only area in the state tested for immature and only for a 22 1/2 mile area. And punished for over 100 immatures a set.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? We could lose more valuable fishing time.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Most of these immatures caught are actually small mature sockeye. It will not affect any of the local resources, these small fish seem to travel only with large volumes of local stocks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The South Peninsula Area and residents who live and fish there.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Jack Berntsen (HQ-09F-171) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 128 - 5 AAC 09.366(I). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Allow the seine fishery based on a ratio of the number of immature salmon caught as follows:

The department shall allow a seine fishery and the amount of immature salmon that are present in the fishery will be determined by the ratio of salmon to the total volume caught at the time of delivery. If the seine fishery is closed due to immature salmon, the Department will set a time to recapture the loss of fish time from the six 48 hour closures.

ISSUE: Area M Shumagin Island fishery is closed for a small amount of immature salmon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Seine fishermen will continue to lose valuable fishing time with the current regulation that manages the July fishery. The current regulation was implemented based on politics and Area M is the only area required to run a test fishery prior to announcing an opening.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, Local stock will be harvested at a higher quality.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The seine fleet.

- 121 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminate the July test fishery. Rejected – immature stocks need to be protected in all areas of the state.

PROPOSED BY: Melvin R. Larsen (HQ-09F-015) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 129 - 5 AAC 09.366(C). Post-June Salmon Management Plan for the South Alaska Peninsula. Extend the commercial salmon fishing season as follows:

The commissioner shall establish, to the extent practicable, concurrent fishing periods in the Southeastern, South-central, Southwestern and Unimak Districts – (C)(4) for October, from 9:00 am to 8:00 pm.

ISSUE: Area M setnetters used to be able to fish in October in the SEDM and Shumagin Islands. Participation was low, but those who wanted to fish in October were able to make some extra income.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Area M fishermen will continue to lose fishing opportunities, and the resource will continue to go unharvested.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen and processors.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-103) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 130 - 5 AAC 09.331(a)(b). Gillnet specifications and operations. Modify the depth of drift and set gillnet gear as follows:

5 AAC 09.331(a) – delete reference to the Unimak and Southwestern Districts in subsection (3) and add a new subsection as follows: “in the Unimak and Southwestern Districts, no drift gillnet may exceed 150 meshes during the Post-June Fishery described in 5 AAC 09.366.”

5 AAC 09.331(b) – delete the reference to the Unimak, Southwestern, South Central, and Southeastern Districts in subsection (1)(c) and add a new subsection as follows: “in the Unimak, Southwestern, South Central, and Southeastern Districts, a set gillnet may not exceed 150 meshes in depth during the Post-June Fishery described in 5 AAC 09.366.”

- 122 - ISSUE: Drift and set gillnets are not able to efficiently harvest pink salmon during the Post-June Fishery due to the current 90 mesh depth restriction. Deeper nets would allow them to harvest pink salmon in sufficient volume to make fishing for pink salmon economical.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drift and set gillnetters will continue to forego economic opportunity for harvesting pink salmon in the Post-June Fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Drift and set gillnetters will have better opportunity to harvest high quality pink salmon.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Increasing the length of gillnets was considered, but rejected in favor of fishing deeper in the water column.

PROPOSED BY: Concerned Area M Fishermen (HQ-09F-070) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 131 - 5 AAC 09.331 (b) (3). Gillnet specifications and operations. Allow for the use of gillnets with mesh size less than five and one-quarter inches as follows:

No restriction of mesh size in SEDM after July 25, and in Shumagin Islands after July 31.

ISSUE: Reducing the set gillnet mesh size in the SE District of the Alaska Peninsula in order to target pink salmon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set gillnet pink quality will suffer because of overhandling.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Quality of pink salmon harvested would improve because 5 ¼ inch mesh does not gill pink salmon. Rather, they get caught up near the dorsal fin.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set gillnetters who fish for pink salmon in SE District of the Alaska Peninsula will see product quality improve and quality off life improve (hands).

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Patrick Brown (SC-09F-018)

- 123 - *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 132 - 5 AAC 09.360. (b), (c), (d). Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Allow harvest opportunity in the SEDM as follows:

When escapement goals are being met in the Chignik River systems and the fisherman in the Chignik Area have begun to harvest salmon. The Southeast District Mainland will open June 1st to commercial fishing to set net gear until midnight July 10th to achieve the management objective of 7.6% Chignik bound sockeye salmon, then beginning July 11th the Southeast District Mainland will be open to both set gillnet and purse seine gear and will meet their objective of 7.6% sockeye level before July 25th. The local stocks of the Northwest Stepovak section, Orzinski Bay, and Stepovak Flats sections will be managed according to their separate plans.

ISSUE: I would like to see the 300,000 sockeye per run, first, Black Lake and second, Chignik Lake totaling 600,000 harvest allocation given to the Chignik area fishermen, before the fisherman in the Southeast District Mainland are allowed to fish be taken out to the management plan.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The fishermen in the Southeast District Mainland will not be able to harvest their traditional 7.6% of the sockeye run when it is strong, if at all.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes we my have more time earlier in June through July to harvest Salmon, with shorter, spaced opening to improve the handling of the larger Sockeye Salmon which are usually the high end market.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Southeast District Mainland setnet fishermen will have more time in their traditional fishing locations which have been restricted and closed.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The Chignik fleet will say they are, but we in Southeast District Mainland are only allowed to catch 7.6% of the Chignik bound fish.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Jim Smith (HQ-09F-094) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 133 - 5 AAC 09.360. Southern Mainland District Salmon Management Plan. Establish a schedule in the SEDM of 72-hour fishing periods as follows:

Open the salmon season on June 6th at 12 midnight for 72 hours close season for 2 days and reopen 72 hours, three days on and two days off continuously until July 20. Place the fishery under SEDM plan rather than Chignik Management so the local fishermen only have to attend Area M meeting, instead of both Chignik and Area M at twice the cost.

- 124 - ISSUE: Since the 1970’s the SEDM set net fishermen have been slowly and consistently squeezed out of the area between McGuinty Point and Kupreanoff Point, which originally was open from June through October. The fishery has turned from a productive mixed fishery to a 4 week humpy (pink) fishery form late July to mid August in 2007 and 2008. The Shumagin Island fishery have become very crowded in essence doubling or tripling the amount of set net gear in the area in effect overcrowding us and reducing individual catches. While both other gear groups enjoy exclusive gear areas set netters pay shore leases for what was once an established fishery, only to be forced to sit and wait while the higher value fish transit the area, and have to settle for fishing pink salmon. Allowing the Chignik fishermen to catch over 4 million pounds, 600,000 thousand fish before I can set a net in the SEDM has the appearance of discrimination rather than allocation. Assuming 80% of the fish in the SEDM management area are Chignik bound is ridiculous when 15 to 20 miles south in the Shumagins it is generally acknowledged is a mixed stock fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The local set netters will continue to be denied access to historical fishery areas, which is affecting the viability of set netting in the region, and continue to over crown in the islands.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The set net fishermen may benefit, or be perceived to benefit, although in reality all I am asking for is 50% of what has been fished, and recently taken away, due to politics and pie in the sky science. It will also benefit in that we can spend less time transiting the areas which will realize some fuel savings, and spread out the fleet.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? I don’t know if anyone will suffer, this was always a mixed stock fishery within Area M boundaries. There is no scientific data to prove Chignik has benefited by closing this area, so it’s our contention they were never harmed.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Consider combing Area M and Area L into one area: probably no way to get consensus between gear groups.

PROPOSED BY: Jack R. Foster Jr. (HQ-09F-061) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 134 - 5 AAC 09.360(f)(G). Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Modify the percentage of sockeye salmon caught in the SEDM as follows:

Eliminate the 80% estimate, or lower to 40%.

ISSUE: The SEDM allocation is based on one small tagging study made in 1963. The estimate is that 80% of fish caught in the SEDM is Chignik bound fish. Other small tagging studies indicate this estimate is too high.

- 125 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Area M fishermen will continue to lose fishing opportunities in the SEDM.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-104) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 135 - 5 AAC 09.360 (b), (c), (d). Southeastern District Mainland Salmon Management Plan. Modify the SEDM allocation criteria as follows:

5 AAC 09.360(b) In years… sockeye salmon is expected to be less than 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ), a commercial salmon… until a harvest of 3000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) sockeye salmon is achieved… After July 8, if at least 3000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c )… the Chignik Area will be at least 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) fish… Chignik Area.

5 AAC 09.360(c ) In years when… more than 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) fish but… Chignik Area of 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) or more fish… at least 3000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) sockeye salmon… After July 8, if at least 3000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) sockeye salmon… is at least 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) fish and the … Chignik Area.

5 AAC 09.360(d) In years…. be more than 6000 times the number of “active and participating Chignik salmon permits” as defined in 5 AAC 39.107 (a) (b) (c ) fish and the … Chignik Area.

ISSUE: Set gillnetters that rely on salmon catch from the Southeast District Mainland are being restricted from their allocated share of Chignik bound sockeye salmon “due to the inactive salmon seine permits in the Chignik area”. In the past three years, the set gillnetters have not fished their traditional amount of time in the Southeast District Mainland in June and July, one of the reasons is there is a reduced catching ability now in the Chignik area catching salmon. Putting in a fair

- 126 - allocation formula in the Southeast District Mainland Management Plan would alleviate this problem.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set gillnetters will be short changed on their traditional amount of time fishing the Southeast District Mainland.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Local red salmon mill in the Southeast District Mainland, in the past three years, when the set netters finally make it the Southeast District Mainland around the last part of July, a high amount of colored red salmon is in the area. If the set netters can go on their traditional times, in June and July, they catch these salmon before they turn color from aging.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set net fishermen of Area M who rely on catches from the Southeast District Mainland.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? To totally eliminate any special allocation to the Chignik fishermen in the Southeast District Mainland Management Plan.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Peninsula Coastal Fishermen’s Association (SC-09F-008) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 136 - 5 AAC 09.355(B). Salmon processor and buyer reporting requirements. Modify the level of sockeye salmon harvest ensured to the Chignik Management Area as follows:

Tie the number of permits fished in Chignik to the Chignik guarantee level, 40% of permits – 240,000, 50% - 300,000.

ISSUE: SEDM setnetters have not fished in the SEDM in June and July for three years. Due to low returns in Chignik, the 600,000 fish guaranteed to Chignik fishermen and low participation by the Chignik fleet.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? SEDM setnetter will continue to be unable to fish the traditional setnet sites in the SEDM.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? SEDM setnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-105)

- 127 - *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 137 - 5 AAC 09.355. Salmon processor and buyer reporting requirements. Modify the allocation to allow incremental fishing time in the SEDM as follows:

Have an incremental allocation such that after 200,000 fish are caught in Chignik, SEDM setnetters get two fishing days, after 400,000, two more days.

ISSUE: Due to low participation, smaller runs, and a guaranteed catch in Chignik, SEDM fishermen have not been able to fish in June and July for three years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? SEDM Set gillnetters will continue to suffer.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M setnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: John A. Foster (HQ-09F-096) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 138 - 5 AAC 09.355. Salmon processor and buyer reporting requirements. Allow concurrent fishing periods in the SEDM and Chignik areas as follows:

SEDM will fish when Chignik fishes, up to the SEDM allocation. The 300,000 fish guaranteed for the first run and the 300,000 guaranteed for the second run will be eliminated.

ISSUE: SEDM setnetters have not fished in the SEDM for three years during June and July. Due to low Chignik runs, low participation in Chignik and the 600,000 fish guaranteed to Chignik fishermen.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? SEDM setnetter will continue to be unable to fish in the SEDM.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? SEDM setnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

- 128 - OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-106) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 139 – 5 AAC 09.350 (35). Closed waters. Modify the description of closed waters in Grub Gulch as follows:

(35) Grub Gulch: waters north of [AND EAST OF A LINE FROM] 55º 48.25’ N. lat. [, 159 º 56.20’ W. LONG. TO 55 º 48.00’ N. LAT., 159 º 58.40’ W. LONG.];

ISSUE: This proposal would clarify the Grub Gulch closed waters definition.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this definition is not addressed, the westernmost point that currently defines closed waters in Grub Gulch will continue to be difficult to identify and cause confusion amongst commercial fishers, fishery managers, and law enforcement.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Unknown.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Commercial fishermen, fishery managers, and law enforcement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-120) *******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal affects both the Alaska Peninsula and Chignik management areas.

PROPOSAL 140 - 5 AAC 09.350. Closed waters; and 5 AAC 15.350. Closed waters. Repeal the closed waters near the Kupreanof Point as follows:

In the Alaska Peninsula Area, Salmon Fishery 5 AAC 09.350. Closed waters

Repeal the following language: [(37) FROM JULY 6 THROUGH AUGUST 31, WATERS OF ALASKA IN THE EAST STEPOVAK SECTION BETWEEN A LINE EXTENDING 135° FROM KUPREANOF POINT AT 55° 33.98' N. LAT., 159° 35.88' W. LONG. AND A LINE EXTENDING 207° FROM 55° 34.50' N. LAT., 159° 37.53' W. LONG.; FROM SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL CLOSE, BY EMERGENCY ORDER, THE WATERS SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH WHEN THE WATERS SPECIFIED IN 5 AAC 15.350(20) ARE CLOSED TO CONSERVE COHO SALMON.]

- 129 -

In the Chignik Area, Salmon Fishery 5 AAC 15.350. Closed waters

Repeal the following language: [(20) FROM JULY 6 THROUGH AUGUST 31, ALL WATERS OF ALASKA IN THE IVANOF BAY SECTION, BETWEEN A LINE EXTENDING 135° FROM KUPREANOF POINT AT 55° 33.98’ N. LAT., 159° 35.88’ W. LONG., AND A LINE EXTENDING FROM 65° FROM 55° 34.90’ N. LAT., 159° 37.10’ W. LONG.]

ISSUE: At the January 10-12, 2008 Chignik Finfish meeting, the Board of Fisheries considered a proposal (Proposal 29, 2007/2008 cycle) that sought to repealed the closed waters near Kupreanof Point in the Western District portion of the Chignik Management Area. The board found merit in repealing all or part of the closed waters in order to allow for expanded fishing opportunity. However, the board was hesitant to take action on only the Chignik Management Area without also considering a commensurate action on the closed waters directly to the west in the Alaska Peninsula Management Area. Because the legal notice for the January 2008 Chignik Finfish did not include the Alaska Peninsula Management Area, the board was not able to take a simultaneous action on both Chignik and the Alaska Peninsula Management areas. The board concluded it should consider both areas at the same time in a single integrated proposal.

The board heard support from the Chignik permit holders for reopening the area. The board would like to hear from additional potentially affected individuals or groups prior to eliminating or reducing the closed waters area.

The rationale for reopening the area is based on changes that have taken place in the fishery since the closed waters were established, including the availability of global positioning systems and the reduced number of permits being fished in each of the two fisheries. The board believes that this proposal will expand salmon fishing opportunity in the vicinity of Kupreanof Point and provide a potential benefit.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? These potentially productive fishing grounds will remain closed.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Potentially. Salmon caught on the capes are generally high quality, especially pinks and chums.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Chignik and Area M fishermen, and communities in both fishing districts.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. It would simply re-open a traditional fishing area.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Another option would be to reduce the size of the closed waters areas while retaining a half-mile closed waters buffer along the boundary between the two fishing areas. This alternative could minimize potential conflicts between permit holders

- 130 - in the two fisheries.

A different procedural option would be to take action on the Chignik Management Area during a Chignik Finfish meeting and take action on the Alaska Peninsula Management Area during an Alaska Peninsula Finfish meeting. This approach would not allow the board to coordinate action on the two areas at one time. The Chignik and the Alaska Peninsula areas are scheduled for different years in the board’s three-year cycle.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Board of Fisheries (HQ-09F-002) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 141 - 5 AAC 09.350. Closed waters. Open Kupreanof Area to fishing for both Area M and Chignik fishermen on alternating schedules as follows:

That the Kupreanof Area will be open at equal times for both Area M and Chiknik but not at the same time.

ISSUE: The Kupreanof closure in Area M and Chiknik fisheries, I would like that area reopened. It has been close 8-10 years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? It has taken away areas to fish when the Northwest Stepavak Area is open, and has added more effort in those areas that are open.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? I fished that area 12 to 15 years before it was closed. It was a great area to fish, and the fish caught there was at its prime for a cape fishery and helped to not have overescapement in our local streams where the quality is sacrificed.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Both Area M and Chiknik fishermen with a good area to fish and harvest quality product.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Jack Berntsen (HQ-09F-172) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 142 - 5 AAC 09.350(32). Closed Waters. Open the waters of Dorenoi Bay to commercial salmon fishing from June 1 through July 25 as follows:

The Dorenoi Bay waters north and west of a line from the tip of Renshaw Point to the opposite shore at 55º 38.40’ N. lat. 160º 19’ long. Will be open from June 1 through July 25 when commercial fishing is allowed in either the Northwest Stepovak section, or the Southeast District Mainland section. All water near any terminus stream will be closed at normal distant markers. After July 25, waters within 500 yards of the terminus of any salmon stream.

- 131 -

ISSUE: The Dorenoi Bay water are closed form June 1 through July 25.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The fishermen fishing in the Northwest Stepovak section and or in the Southeast District Mainland are losing fishing area for no apparent reason.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes as the weather is calmer farther in the larger bays like Dorenoi in this area, which may leave less gillnet marks on the salmon during foul weather.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The setnet fisherman in the Northwest Stepovak Section may have a place to fish when the winds are blowing strong out of the south as Dorenoi is one of the larger bays in that area with some protection for anchoring and fishing.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Not sure if any.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Jim Smith (HQ-09F-095) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 143 - 5 AAC 09.350(32)(A). Closed waters. Open the waters of Dorenoi Bay to commercial salmon fishing before July 25 as follows:

Open Dorenoi Bay before July 25th.

ISSUE: Before July 25, Dorenoi Bay is closed to commercial fishing.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishing opportunities for local fishermen will continue to be lost.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen and processors.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-102) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 144 - 5 AAC 09.350(36)(A). Closed Waters. Modify the description of all closed waters in Stepovak Bay as follows:

- 132 -

From June 1 thru September 30 waters within 500 yards of any salmon stream or lagoon.

ISSUE: After July 28 Stepovak Bay is closed for the remainder of the season regardless of how many fish show up.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fishing opportunities for Area M fishermen will continue to be lost.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M fishermen and processors.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-099) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 145 - 5 AAC 09.320. Fishing periods. Amend the weekly opening and closing times in the Inner Port Heiden and Ilnik sections as follows:

5 AAC 09.320. Fishing Periods.

(3) in the Cinder River Section salmon maybe taken from 6:00 am on Thursday until 6:00 pm on Saturday prior to June 1 and after August 1. [OUTER PORT HEIDEN] In the Inner Port Heiden and Ilnik Sections, salmon may be taken only from 6:00 am until 6:00 pm Wednesday, except that before June 20 in that portion of the Ilnik Section within the Ilnik lagoon and all waters inside the Seal Islands, salmon way be taken only from 12:00 noon Monday until 11:59 pm Wednesday.

ISSUE: Modify the current weekly fishing openings in the Cinder River Section prior to June 1 and after August 1 to accommodate the fresh fly-out market. It is not economically feasible to process the salmon at the end of the current weekly schedule (Thursday a.m. for Cinder River product) and attempt to fly them to market on the weekends.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local fishermen will lose the only market currently available to them for Chinook and Coho salmon.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Absolutely, with this proposed change to the weekly fishing schedule the participating processor(s) will be able to avoid the extra cost of shipping and handling fees charged by the air cargo companies on the weekends.

- 133 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local fishermen and any processors willing to fly out finished seafood products out of the villages of Pilot Point and Ugashik.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Lower Bristol Bay AC (SW-09F-019) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 146 - 5 AAC 09.320(3). Fishing Periods. Amend the weekly opening and closing times in the Cinder River Section as follows:

In the Cinder River Sections, salmon may be taken only from 6:00 am Thursday until 6:00pm Saturday. In the [CINDER RIVER], Outer Port Heiden, Inter Port Heiden and Ilnik Sections, salmon may be taken only from 6:00 am Monday until 6:00 pm Wednesday, except that before June 20 in that portion of the Ilnik section within the Ilnik Lagoon and all waters inside the Seal Island, salmon may be taken only from 12:00 noon Monday until 11:50 pm Wednesday

ISSUE: Weekly fishing periods, that do not work well with shipping fish out by air.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost fishing opportunity.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Increase quality on kings and silvers as they can get to market in a timelier manner.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-088) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 147 - 5 AAC 09.320. Fishing periods. Restrict openings in the Northern District unless local escapement goals are met as follows:

No openings to commercial fishing in the Area M Northern District unless local escapement goals are met, thus reducing the amount of migration barriers in Northern Area M District waters.

ISSUE: Excessive Migration Blocking of Local Systems in Area M Northern District.

- 134 - Our society is faced with one of the greatest challenges in ecological management, the projected extinction of viable anadromous salmonid populations by the end of the 21st century. Anadromous salmon and trout are not only key aspects of ecosystem function, but are vital aspects of our heritage, culture, economy, and health. As they utilize both freshwater and saltwater habitat, anadromous salmonids are concurrently subjected to the multiple stressors of an increasing human population, facing habitat degradation and destruction inland and overfishing at sea.

Of the many stressors facing salmonids, one of the most profound and understated is human- caused barriers to their natural migration. On the west coast of the United States alone there are over 60,000 barriers to anadromous salmonid migration, blocking access to at least 50% of their historic range. In lieu of the multiple stressors leading to salmonid decline, re-establishing connectivity via fish passage improvement is one of the more feasible approaches for enhancing populations.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local salmon streams and river systems continue to not meet scheduled minimum escapement goals.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Current fish and game management has been continuously opening the Area M Northern District when local system goals that need these fish to sustain future stocks are ignored. Removing migration barriers will ensure healthy salmon returns and resources for the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fisherman and world wide consumers that are committed to the success of future salmon resources.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fisherman who are only in the fishing industry for the short term quick buck.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Ray Johnson and Brian Hartman (HQ-09F-114) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 148 - 5 AAC 09.320. Fishing periods. Institute windows in the Northern District as follows:

Allow commercial fishing non-barrier “windows” during scheduled season openings, thus reducing the amount of migration barriers in Northern Area M District waters.

ISSUE: Excessive Migration Blocking of Local Systems in Area M Northern District.

Our society is faced with one of the greatest challenges in ecological management, the projected extinction of viable anadromous salmonid populations by the end of the 21st century. Anadromous salmon and trout are not only key aspects of ecosystem function, but are vital

- 135 - aspects of our heritage, culture, economy, and health. As they utilize both freshwater and saltwater habitat, anadromous salmonids are concurrently subjected to the multiple stressors of an increasing human population, facing habitat degradation and destruction inland and overfishing at sea.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local salmon streams and river systems continue to not meet scheduled minimum escapement goals.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Current fish and game management has been continuously opening the Area M Northern District when local system goals that need these fish to sustain future stocks are ignored. Disrupting the constant existence of migration barriers, if done properly, will improve healthy salmon resources for the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fisherman and world wide consumers that are committed to the success of future salmon resources.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fisherman who are only in the fishing industry for the short term quick buck.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Ray Johnson and Brian Hartman (HQ-09F-115) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 149 - 5 AAC 09.369. Northern District Salmon Fisheries Management Plan. Modify the management of the Ilnik Section as follows:

That portion of the Illnik Section northeast of Unangashak Bluffs to Stroganoff Point is managed on a basis of the Kvichak River conservation concerns and…Before July 5th, in the Illnik Section northeast of Unangashak Bluffs a weekly total harvest cap of 100,000 sockeye salmon will be allowed. Fishing will be limited to a maximum of 24 hours continuous fishing and must be followed by at least a 24 hour closure. The Outer Port Heiden Section will be closed June 20th until July 15th.

ISSUE: For the North Peninsula Management plan to reinstate the 100,000 sockeye salmon cap, and reinstate the maximum 24 hours continuous fishing followed by at least a 24 hour closure guideline.

- 136 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The North Peninsula Management Plan does not restrain the interception and possible over harvesting of Bristol Bay runs and specifically the Kvichak River an/or the Ugashik River sockeye salmon.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Ugashik and Kvichak Rivers biologists will have more salmon to achieve minimum escapement goals.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Kurt Johnson (HQ-09F-153) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 150 - 5 AAC 09.310. Fishing seasons. Close the Outer Port Heiden Section to gillnet fishing from June 20 to July 15 as follows:

The Outer Port Heiden Section is closed to all gillnet fishing June 20th until July 15th.

ISSUE: The Northern Peninsula District is a mixed stock fishery that intercepts Bristol Bay salmon. At the last Board of Fish meeting the Northern Peninsula District’s opportunity to intercept Bristol Bay fish was increased by opening the Outer Port Heiden Section. State Fisheries policy is to not allow the expansion for mixed stock fisheries. Last season 320,857 sockeye salmon were harvested in the Outer Port Heiden Section just miles south of the Ugashik District in the Bristol Bay Fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? An increased amount of Bristol Bay bound salmon will be intercepted.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The conservation of Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon during years where minimum escapement goals can not be met, specifically the Ugashik and Kvichak runs.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Kurt Johnson (HQ-09F-154) *******************************************************************************

- 137 - PROPOSAL 151 - 5 AAC 09.310. Fishing seasons. Close the Outer Port Heiden Section as follows:

5 AAC 09.310 Fishing Seasons (a) In the Northern District, salmon may be taken as follows: (2) Port Heiden Sections: (B) Outer Port Heiden Section: closed (From May 1 through September 30)

ISSUE: Close the Outer Port Heiden Section of the Northern District to the harvest of salmon between June 1 and September 30.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Non-traditional fishermen from Area M drift fleet will harvest too many salmon destined for their river of origin in the Bristol Bay area. The Outer Port Heiden Section is a known area of mixed salmon stocks.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local commercial, sport and subsistence salmon users in the villages of Port Heiden, Pilot Point and Ugashik. In reality, all of the Bristol Bay Rivers will benefit because of the intercept nature of the fishery and the inter-mixed salmon stocks that migrate through this area.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-083) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 153 - 5 AAC 09.330(3). Gear. Allow purse seine gear inside Ilnik Lagoon as follows:

Purse seine gear will be allowed in the Inner Ilnik section.

ISSUE: Over escapement in the Ilnik Lagoon.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The resource will continue to go unharvested.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Will help with overescapement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those Area M seiners who wish to participate.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point AC (HQ-09F-098) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 154 - 5 AAC 09.330. Gear. Change the gear mesh depth to 45 meshes in the Northern District as follows:

Adopt fishing gear mesh depth limit of 45 meshes deep for the Area M Northern District, thus reducing the amount of migration barriers in Northern Area M District waters.

- 139 -

ISSUE: Excessive Migration Blocking of Local Systems in Area M Northern District.

Our society is faced with one of the greatest challenges in ecological management, the projected extinction of viable anadromous salmonids populations by the end of the 21st century. Anadromous salmon and trout are not only key aspects of ecosystem function, but are vital aspects of our heritage, culture, economy, and health. As they utilize both freshwater and saltwater habitat, anadromous salmonids are concurrently subjected to the multiple stressors of an increasing human population, facing habitat degradation and destruction inland and overfishing at sea.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local salmon streams and river systems continue to not meet scheduled minimum escapement goals.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. Current fish and game management has been continuously opening the Area M Northern District when local system goals that need these fish to sustain future stocks are ignored. Reducing the size of migration barriers, will ensure healthy salmon resources for the future.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fisherman and world wide consumers that are committed to the success of future salmon resources.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Fisherman who are only in the fishing industry for the short term quick buck.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Ray Johnson and Brian Hartman (HQ-09F-112) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 155 - 5 AAC 09.330(10). Gear. Allow set gillnet gear in the Outer Port Heiden Section as follows:

(10) Outer Port Heiden section: with drift gillnets and set gillnets only

ISSUE: To allow setnets in the outer Port Heiden section. It is not fair to limit a fishery to only one type of gillnet gear when other districts around it allow both types of gear.

- 140 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost fishing opportunity by setnetters.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Improve access to allow set netters to catch fish.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-081) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 156 - 5 AAC 09.331(8). Gillnet specifications and operations. Change seaward gillnet distance in the Cinder River, Port Heiden, and Ilnik sections as follows:

In the Cinder River Port Heiden and Ilnik Sections of the Northern District, a person may not place the seaward end of a set gillnet further than one-half mile from the mean high tide mark. [PERMENT VEGETATION LINE OF THE BEACH, EXCEPT THAT IN THE SEAL ISLANDS A PERSON MAY NOT PLACE THE SEAWARD END OF A SET GILLNET FURTHER THAN ONE-HALF MILE FROM THE MEAN HIGH TIDE MARK]

ISSUE: Long beached in the northern districts, set nets many times cannot get wet and you cannot fish with a skiff right on the beach due to surf.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lost fishing opportunity for set-netters.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? It keeps the fish out of the surf therefore improving quality.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Allowing the seaward end to be no more this might interfere with drifters.

PROPOSED BY: Roland Briggs (HQ-09F-087) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 157 - 5 AAC 09.369(1). Northern District Salmon Fisheries Management Plan. Change the angle of the boundary line in the Outer Port Heiden Section as follows:

Amend 5 AAC 09.369(l) to read as follows: “The Outer Port Heiden Section is open from June 20 through July 31 to commercial salmon fishing in those waters west of a line from 57º05.52’

- 141 - N. lat., 158º 34.45’ W. long. to 57º08.85’ N. lat., 158º37.5’ W. long. [158º 36.00’ W. LONGITUDE] based on the abundance of Meshik River sockeye salmon. (The rest of Subsection l remains unchanged.)

ISSUE: The northeastern boundary for fishing in the Outer Port Heiden Section is currently prescribed as a longitude line (158º 36.00’ W. long). This line runs at a very steep angle to the beach and presents problems in setting nets and maintaining an orderly fishery. The line should be pivoted so that it is similar to other boundary lines in the Northern District.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drift gillnetters who fish in this area will continue to experience the problems they have encountered since this portion of the Outer Port Heiden Section was opened, including presence of snags and disruption of the fleet’s customary fishing patterns.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will promote a more orderly fishery, which will promote improved quality.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Area M drift gillnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. The proposal is to pivot the existing line around its current midpoint, which means there will be no net gain in fishing area in the Outer Port Heiden Section.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? We considered locating the boundary line in other places but rejected that idea in favor of maintaining the line in its current location but at a better angle to the beach.

PROPOSED BY: Concerned Area M Fishermen (HQ-09F-073) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 158 - 5 AAC 27.655(a)(3). Dutch Harbor Food and Bait Herring Fishery Allocation Plan. Change the Dutch Harbor food and bait herring set gillnet allocation as follows:

Add a new subparagraph (3) Once the seine quota has been harvested and there is still remaining gillnet quota left, the seine fleet may harvest the remainder of the gillnet quota.

ISSUE: Allow herring seine food and bait fishery to harvest the remaining quota allocated to the gillnet food and bait fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Abundant food and bait herring allocated to the gillnet harvest will remain un-harvested each year.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal keeps the overall harvest quota(s) in place and does not adjust

- 142 - quota in any other areas where these herring stocks may offer. This proposal provides adequate time for gillnet harvest and allows both hear groups to participate in the fishery until the harvest quota is achieved.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? State of Alaska and local economy.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Currently there is very little gillnet participation in this fishery so no one will suffer.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Edgan Smith (SC-09F-005) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 161 - 5 AAC 09.331. Gillnet specifications and operations. Modify the length of seine webbing used as a lead for set gillnet gear from 10 fathoms to 50 fathoms as follows:

Set net lead will be no greater than 50 fathoms.

ISSUE: Repeal section (C) (5)-(10) fathom seine web for set net lead. Increase lead from 10 fathoms to 50 fathoms.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Set net lead will remain the same - with the problem of not getting away from the surf on the beach and kelp.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, this regulation will allow set gillnet to be out of surf and kelp. Help gillnet form rolling up.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All set net operations.

- 144 -

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solution is applicable.

PROPOSED BY: Sand Point Advisory Committee (HQ-09F-021) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 162 - 5 AAC 09.331(B)(5). Gillnet specifications and operations. Modify the length of seine webbing used as a lead for set gillnet gear from 10 fathoms to 25 fathoms as follows:

25 fathom seine leads will be allowed for each set gillnet.

ISSUE: Setnet are allowed to have 10 fathom leads. 10 fathom leads are too short to be of any use.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE?

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Set gillnetters.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? 50 fathom leads. 25 fathom seemed a more reasonable and functional length.

PROPOSED BY: John A. Foster (HQ-09F-097) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 163 - 5 AAC 65.020(a)(1). Bag limits, possession limits, and size limits for Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Area. Simplify bag and possession limits for king salmon in Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands Area as follows:

(1) king salmon: (A) in fresh waters: (i) 20 inches or greater in length; bag and possession limit of two fish; [3 PER DAY, 3 IN POSSESSION, OF WHICH ONLY 2 MAY BE 28 INCHES OR GREATER IN LENGTH;] 5 fish annual limit for king salmon 20 inches or greater in length; harvest record is required as specified in 5 AAC 75.006; (ii) less than 20 inches in length; bag and possession limit of 10 fish; king salmon less than 20 inches in length caught in fresh water do not count toward the annual limit. (B) in saltwater; 2 per day, 2 in possession; no size limit; no annual limit.

- 145 - PROBLEM: The current freshwater king salmon bag limit is unnecessarily complex, potentially confusing, and provides relatively little additional harvest opportunity. ADF&G logbook data shows that in freshwaters of the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island Area, anglers rarely harvest three king salmon per day 20 inches or greater in length, one of which by regulation must be between 20 and 28 inches. Changing the freshwater daily bag and possession limit for king salmon 20” or greater in length to two fish (instead of three fish, only two of which may be over 28” in length) will simplify the freshwater regulations. The change will also make the freshwater regulations consistent with the Kodiak Regulatory area, which the Board changed to two king salmon 20” or greater in length at the January 2008 Board of Fisheries meeting. As a housekeeping measure to improve clarity, the statewide provision that allows the harvest of 10 king salmon under 20” is being added to the Chapter 65 area regulations.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The freshwater bag limit for king salmon will remain status quo. King salmon bag and possession limits will remain inconsistent between fresh and salt waters in the Alaska Peninsula area.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public will benefit by having a simplified and consistent king salmon bag and possession regulation.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Anglers who would like to harvest a third king salmon that is between 20 inches and 28 inches.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leaving current regulations in place was considered.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-131) ******************************************************************************

- 146 -

STATEWIDE FINFISH PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL 164 - 5 AAC 01.030. Unlawful Possession of Subsistence Finfish. Revise unlawful possession of subsistence finfish as follows:

Amend 5 AAC 01.030 by adding paragraph (d): Subsistence Sockeye and Chinook Salmon (Commonly referred to as Home Packs) (1) Home Packs shall have no monetary value and can not be sold to any business or individual. (2) Home Packs may be bartered for other subsistence foods. (3) Only one Home Pack shall be authorized per family of two or more. (4) ADF&G issued permits for Home Packs shall be required at no cost to the receiving family. (5) Only three proxy permits shall be authorized per commercial fishing vessel (6) Home Packs shall be limited to a total of 40 salmon of which only two can be Chinook Salmon. (7) Commercially caught salmon and salmon caught for subsistence shall not occupy the same storage or processing areas.

ISSUE: (1) To adopt better controls for Alaskan Salmon fisheries. (2) To monitor and enforce the potential illegal sale of subsistence caught Sockeye and Chinook Salmon caught with commercial fishing gear and (3) To put a limit on the amount of Sockeye and Chinook Salmon allowed per household.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Potential overfishing of the Chinook and Sockeye fisheries.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will help reduce the demand on the highly prized Chinook salmon and offers ADF&G and Wildlife Conservation Troopers more authority to monitor, conserve, and regulate Alaskan salmon fisheries.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Alaskan residents including subsistence users.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Only those who do or intend to sell subsistence salmon in the black market.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions will work that won’t have a negative impact on subsistence users.

PROPOSED BY: Fairbanks AC (HQ-09F-092) *******************************************************************************

- 147 - PROPOSAL 165 - 5 AAC 77.xxx. New Section. Delay opening personal use fishery until escapement goal is met as follows:

Personal use dipnetting will only begin after the biological escapement goal for a stream is met.

ISSUE: Personal use dipnetting has, by the default of the Board, been given priority over all other fishing. There never has been a proposal before the Board giving this priority and allowing the public to comment on it.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? In times of low returns sport and commercial fishing will be curtailed or closed because dipnetters have taken too many fish before the escapement goal is met. Personal use should only begin after the biological escapement goal has been met. Sport and commercial fishing was here long before there ever was a personal use fishery. No priority was ever given for personal use in statute or regulation.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Businesses and guides who depend on sport fishing. Commercial fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihood as stated in Article VIII, Section 15 of the State Constitution.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who think that their own living schedules should dictate the opening of dipnetting.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Change the bag limit of dipnetters to the daily sport fish bag limit. The board already denied this.

PROPOSED BY: Steve Vanek (HQ-09F-111) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 166 - 5 AAC 77.010. Methods, means and general restrictions. Eliminate requirement of having a sport fishing license to fish in personal use fisheries as follows:

(a) Finfish, shellfish, and aquatic plants may be taken for personal use only by [A HOLDER OF A VALID RESIDENT ALASKA SPORT FISHING LICENSE OR BY] an Alaskan resident. [EXEMPT FROM LICENSING UNDER AS.16.05.400.]

ISSUE: This requirement is only in board regulation and has never been authorized by the Alaska Legislature as required by law. Under 5 AAC 77.001 personal use is defined as not being sport fishing, so it should not require a sport license.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Board does not have the authority to require a sport fish license, so it is not enforceable in court.

- 148 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Personal use fishermen.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I have submitted a petition also.

PROPOSED BY: Ken Tarbox (SC-09F-017) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 167 - 5 AAC 39.105. Types of legal gear. Modify definition of mechanical jigging machine as follows:

(d)(25) a mechanical jigging machine is a device that deploys a line with lures or baited hooks, and retrieves that line and lures or hooks with electrical, hydraulic, or mechanically powered assistance; a mechanical jigging machine allows the line with lures or hooks to be fished only in the water column; a mechanical jigging machine must be attached to a vessel registered to fish with a mechanical jigging machine and may not be anchored or operated off the vessel.

ISSUE: The definition of mechanical jigging machine is not clear on whether baited hooks are allowed.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued misunderstanding over baiting of jig hooks.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Unknown.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public and agencies will benefit from clear and consistent regulatory language.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-125) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 168 - 5 AAC 39.117. Vessel Length; bulbous bow. Repeal the length limit on salmon seine vessels in Alaska as follows:

The preferred solution is for the Board to repeal the length limit on salmon seine vessels in Alaska.

- 149 - ISSUE: The board adoption of excluding the “bulbous bow’ from the length measurement of a salmon purse seine vessel is real progress. It should now repeal the 58’ limit on the length of vessel in the salmon purse seine fishery.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Alaska purse seine salmon vessels will continue to be vessels that are inefficient. The vessels now being built have length to width ratios that, even with a bulbous bow, will consume more fuel then needed. The length law does not stop capacity increases because everyone just adds width and depth as a way to make the vessel capacity greater for the fishery. This length restriction produces inefficient vessels.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, a larger length boat would allow fishermen to explore ways to add value to Alaska salmon. Some Alaska salmon purse seiners may want to process their catch at sea and the present 58’ limit makes that almost impossible.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The Alaska purse seine fishermen who wish to pioneer ideas of efficiency in vessel operation and those wishing to develop Alaska salmon, value added products. Others will keep informed of the new ideas and they can copy those that are successful. This helps all.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Of course proposals of this nature have some degree of opposition. Often times the arguments against are largely due to a personal opinion or position. These arguments will be discussed in a following document giving more detail of the proposal.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I submitted a proposal similar to this last year. Some board members viewed the proposal as a statewide issue which is why I am re-submitting it as such. I still feel that it will be better dealt with on an area by area basis (i.e. Southeast only) and have not rejected that option.

PROPOSED BY: Darrell Kapp (HQ-09F-028) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 169 - 5 AAC 39.205. Criteria for the allocation of fishery resources among personal use, sport, and commercial fisheries. Amend criteria for the allocation of fishery resources as follows:

Define to the public why the BOF and the State of Alaska can deny an individual or group of individuals’ reasonable opportunity to harvest a state managed resource.

ISSUE: Current regulation addresses AS 16.05.251(e) There is no regulation guideline for evaluating these criteria. The BOF members are relegated to giving their opinion rather than stating facts as they are relevant to the proposal or action being taken. It was not the intent that the BOF pick and choose which allocation criteria that are to be applied but that they should all be weighed equally. Memorandum November 19, 2008, From: DOL: Fair and reasonable opportunity. Regulations adopted for the purposes set forth in AS 16.05.251(a), consistent with sustained yield and the subsistence law, must also “provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for

- 150 - the taking of a fishery resources by personal use, sport and commercial fishermen.” (AS 16.05.251(d)) That requirement, however, does not prevent the Board from allocating resources among user groups, The Board may make a particular species in a particular area available to one user group without making the same species or area available to another user group. (See Kenai Peninsula Fisherman’s Coop. Ass’n v. State, 628 P. 2d 897, 904 (Alaska 1981)) If there is any question as to whether action on a proposal could deprive a user group of a “fair and reasonable opportunity” Board members should discuss this issue and provide their reasoning as to whether the proposal would provide such opportunity.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Definition of “reasonable opportunity” exists in the subsistence regulations. “reasonable opportunity” means an opportunity “that allows a subsistence user to participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery that provides a normally diligent participant with a reasonable expectation of success of taking of fish or game.” AS 16.05.258(f) These terms will have two meanings in regulation and policy. There is no guidelines to determining and to define state or justify in writing why one group or individual can be denied access to one resource over another.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Exclusive fisheries.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fisherman’s Association (HQ-09F-168) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 170 - 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries. Clarify regulations establishing escapement goals as follows:

(c ) (2) (B) salmon escapement goals, whether sustainable escapement goals, biological escapement goals, optimal escapement goals, or in-river run goals, should be established in a manner consistent with sustained yield; unless otherwise directed, the department will manage Alaska’s salmon fisheries, to the extent possible, for maximum sustained yield, no other types of goals are authorized and all escapement goals will be expressed as a range, except for SET which will be established as in (f) (30) of this section;

ISSUE: Clarify for the department and the public that the types of goals established in this regulation are all inclusive and that new goal types must go through the public Board process before they are implemented. In a memorandum dated January 15, 2008 the department responded to a complaint raised over the establishment of an SEG threshold for the Anchor River documenting 33 Sustainable Escapement Goal thresholds which are confusing at a minimum and cite the Department of Law opinion that they can set goal types other than the goals in the policy for the

- 151 - management of sustainable salmon fisheries. These goals should be redone in cycle during the next three years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department will continue to establish new goal types whenever they desire circumventing the boards regulations and the public process.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone, because the regulation is clear and does not allow the department to come up with other types of goals that have allocative impacts that are never discussed in public meetings.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? The department personnel who choose not to manage certain stocks as directed, prime example is Anchor River Chinook where the data exists to set a BEG, however the department has decided they don’t want to manage the fishery. So they set an SEG threshold even though the regulation clearly states that “(36) “sustainable escapement goal” or “(SEG)” means a level of escapement, indicated by an index or an escapement estimate, that is known to provide for sustained yield over a 5 to 10 year period, used in situations where a BEG cannot be estimated due to the absence of a stock specific catch estimate; the SEG is the primary management objective for the escapement, unless an optimal escapement or in-river run goal has been adopted by the board, and will be developed from the best available biological information; the SEG will be determined by the department and will be stated as a range that takes into account data uncertainty; the department will seek to maintain escapements within the bounds of the SEG.”

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Tried discussing this with the department but was basically left with go to court if you don’t like it.

PROPOSED BY: Ken Tarbox (SC-09F-015) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 171 - 5 AAC 39.223. Policy for statewide salmon escapement goals. Clarify escapement goals and establish ranges as follows:

(a) The Department of Fish and Game (department) and the Board of Fisheries (board) are charged with the duty to conserve and develop Alaska’s salmon fisheries on the sustained yield principle. Therefore, the establishment of salmon escapement goals is the responsibility of both the board and the department working collaboratively. The purpose of this policy is to establish the concepts, criteria, and procedures for establishing and modifying salmon escapement goals and to establish a process that facilitates public review of allocative issues associated with escapement goals. The department will only set BEG, SEG, and SET type escapement goals as provided in this policy and in 5AAC 39.222. Both BEG and SEG type goals will be established as a range as set forth in 5 AAC 39.222. The Board only, will set OEG and in-river type escapement goals which will be expressed as a range as set forth in 5AAC

- 152 - 39.222. No other types of goals are authorized until approved in this Board’s process. (b) The board recognizes the department’s responsibility to (1) document existing salmon escapement goals for all salmon stocks that are currently managed for an escapement goal; (2) establish biological escapement goals (BEG) for salmon stocks for which the department can reliably enumerate salmon escapement levels, as well as total annual returns; (3) establish sustainable escapement goals (SEG) for salmon stocks for which the department can reliably estimate escapement levels when there is not sufficient information to enumerate total annual returns and the range of escapements that are used to develop a BEG; (4) establish sustained escapement thresholds (SET) as provided in 5AAC 39.222 (Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries); (5) establish escapement goals for aggregates of individual spawning populations with similar productivity and vulnerability to fisheries and for salmon stocks managed as units; (6) review an existing, or propose a new BEG, SEG, and SET on a schedule that conforms, to the extent practicable, to the board’s regular cycle of consideration of area regulatory proposals; (7) prepare a scientific analysis with supporting data whenever a new BEG, SEG, or SET, or a modification to an existing BEG, SEG, or SET is proposed and, in its discretion, to conduct independent peer reviews of its BEG, SEG, and SET analyses; (8) notify the public whenever a new BEG, SEG, or SET is established or an existing BEG, SEG, or SET is modified; (9) whenever allocative impacts arise from any management actions necessary to achieve a new or modified BEG, SEG, or SET, report to the board on a schedule that conforms, to the extent practicable, to the board’s regular cycle of consideration of area regulatory proposals so that it can address allocation issues. (c ) In recognition of its joint responsibilities, and in consultation with the department, the board will (1) take regulatory actions as may be necessary to address allocation issues arising from implementation of a new or modified BEG, SEG, and SET; (2) during its regulatory process, review a BEG, SEG, or SET determined by the department and, with the assistance of the department, determine the appropriateness of establishing an optimal escapement goal (OEG); the board will provide an explanation of the reasons for establishing an OEG and provide, to the extent practicable, and with the assistance of the department, an estimate of expected differences in yield of any salmon stock, relative to maximum sustained yield, resulting from implementation of an OEG.

(d) Unless the context requires otherwise, the terms used in this section have the same meaning given those terms in 5AAC 39.222 (f).

ISSUE: Clarify that the Board and Department will only set the types of goals outlined in this policy and in 5AAC 39.222 and that all goals except SET’s will be established as a range. Further than the department and board will adhere to the management principles contained within these two regulations.

- 153 -

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? New ad hoc types of goals will be established circumventing these two policies and the public process. If the department and board don’t want to follow these regulations, they should be repealed.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Ken Tarbox (SC-09F-016) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 172 - 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries; and 5 AAC 39.223. Policy for statewide salmon escapement goals. Provide definition for escapement goal threshold as follows:

Define “sustainable escapement goal threshold”

We believe that this subject should be vetted in the public process and discussed by the Board, Department and public. Committee’s have been formed to discuss this issue in the past with no recommendations determined. The department has adopted this strategy and developed this goal with out public acceptance. The department and Board should define and determine the proper area to place this within the SSFP and should further define and report the known and unknown effects to further returns, harvests in the system where this “new” goal would apply.

ISSUE: Current policy language in regulation does not define SEG-T. DOL states “The fact that SEG Thresholds are not expressly defined in 5 AAC 39.222 (SSFP) does not mean the department cannot use them for escapement goal purposes. There is nothing in the SSFP that mandates that the department only manage according to defined escapement goals. “ Current language in the EGP does not require the BOF to be involved with any ADF&G decision to establish and manage goals that are not defined in the SSFP. DOL states “Nor is there any provision in 5 AAC 39.223 (EGP) that mandates management of salmon escapement only to the goals defined in the SSFP. Rather , in the EGP, the Board simply “recognizes the department’s responsibility to “ establish escapement goals, it does not mandate any particular action.”

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The Board, Department and the public will not be coordinated on this change in management actions and policy changes. The public will not know what to expect form future returns. The public needs to thourally understand the difference between managing for MSY and or an SEGT. An SEG is defined in the SSFP 39.222(f)(36). An

- 154 - SET is defined in SSFP 39.222(f)(39). One term discusses a range and the other talk about a “point” where…below which the ability of the salmon stock to sustain itself is jeopardized;…further it is defined as lower than the lower bound of the SEG. This is confusing to all that read this meld of terms. The department should be well advised by the Board and the public in proposals, testimony and committee on the ramifications in managing a stock with limited knowledge of how this will affect future returns.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, users may better plan for utilization.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users because it will define management objectives.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Department personnel who will be required to take a more active role in evaluating actual returning, rearing and outmigration population.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association (HQ-09F-156) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 173 - 5 AAC 28.086. Management Plan for Parallel Groundfish Fisheries. Amend this regulation to read:

5 AAC 28.086. Management Plan for Parallel Groundfish Fisheries. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, or management measures stated in a global emergency order issued by the commissioner at the beginning of a parallel groundfish fishery season, the commissioner may open and close, by emergency order, fishing seasons during which area closures, gear restrictions, vessel size limits, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement requirements may be imposed as the commissioner determines reasonably necessary to correspond with federal fishery management measures. (b) For the purposes of this chapter, except as otherwise specified, "parallel groundfish fishery" means a fishery [THE PACIFIC COD, WALLEYE POLLOCK, AND ATKA MACKEREL FISHERIES] in state waters opened by the commissioner, under emergency order authority, to correspond with the times, area, and unless otherwise specified, the gear of a federal season in adjacent federal waters.

ISSUE: Parallel groundfish fisheries are conducted by adopting federal rules via emergency order into state waters. This proposal will provide regulatory authority for establishing all parallel groundfish fisheries except as otherwise provided in regulation. The proposed regulation would authorize management measures for parallel fisheries purposes and species other than those provided for under Steller sea lion protection regulations.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Regulatory authority for parallel groundfish fisheries will be missing.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS

- 155 - PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Unknown.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, fishery managers, and law enforcement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-129) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 174 - 5 AAC 28.050. Lawful gear for groundfish. Amend lawful gear for groundfish as follows:

Gillnet fishing will be allowed to fish for Pacific cod in state waters again, modeled after the Norwegian fishery.

ISSUE: Expanding the state water Pacific cod fishery to include gillnet fishing for small boat fishing. This fishery will be modeled after the Norwegian fishery. Each vessel will be restricted to a total of 200 fathoms of gear.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The small boat fleet are unable to fish for Pacific cod economically. This would encourage them and provide for more economically based fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The small boats, 58 feet and under, that are fishing with pots. Eliminates bycatch since these nets will be off the bottom.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All small boats in the area.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Stanley Mack (HQ-09F-027) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 175 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New section. Establish bag limit for sablefish as follows:

For resident anglers: sablefish may be taken from January 1 through December 31: daily bag limit of 2, 4 in possession, and no annual limit; for nonresident anglers: sablefish may be taken from January 1 through December 31: daily bag limit of 2, 4 in possession and an annual limit of 4 fish.

ISSUE: There is no bag or possession limit for blackcod (sablefish), a highly valuable commercial species in a period of statewide decline. Without a bag limit, the sport take is

- 156 - unlimited and this is not appropriate for a high value, long-lived species. Other similar species (yelloweye rockfish, lingcod, halibut, king salmon & shark) have restrictive daily and/or annual bag limits where ever they are in high demand.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? A new charter fishery is developing for this species that is already fully utilized and sensitive to overharvest. The use of electric reels and jigging machines, historically understood to be prohibited, but recently declared legal tackle allows efficient access to deep water species. These fish have previously been insulated from sport fish harvest and are species of great longevity. Even with a ban on electric reels for sport fishing it is appropriate to set limits for sport harvest of blackcod.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource will benefit as uncontrolled development of a new fishery will not occur and commercial fishermen will benefit as they will have some protection from the potential from unlimited growth in the charter sector. Sport anglers also benefit by having access to a species and reasonable limits to protect future access.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial charter operations that marketing high-volume blackcod sport fishing trips.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A one fish bag limit which is also an appropriate limit. A 2 fish annual limit. The Board passed a 2 fish per day sablefish limit in Southeast in February 2009.

PROPOSED BY: Sitka AC (HQ-09F-046) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 176 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New Section. Increase bag limit for spiny dogfish as follows:

Make a more reasonable possession/daily limit of the Spiny Dog Fish, such as 5 fish per day, with a combined limit of 10 per year.

ISSUE: I would like to see the spiny dog fish taken off the category as a shark. It should be listed in a category by itself, and a more liberal daily limit.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Fisherman who like to eat the spiny dog fish will not be allowed to take but one fisher per year and this is not fair.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? At the current time, I do not see any anglers keeping this fish, as it is considered a shark and it must be placed on your license soon as caught, and therefore people do not keep them and they are getting over populated.

- 157 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Any angler who chooses to catch and keep the spiny dog fish, will be allowed to do so, with out having to write on the license the information at the time of harvest, as is now required on shark harvest. I enjoy eating the spiny dog fish but I am only allowed one per year. I travel from Oklahoma to Alaska each year to fish and I would like to harvest more than one.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one will suffer if adopted.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Thomas E. Pitts (HQ-09F-006) ******************************************************************************

Note, this proposals was generated by the Board of Fisheries during the February 2009 Southeast Finfish meeting and scheduled for consideration at the March 2010 Statewide finfish meeting for possible consideration as a statewide proposal.

PROPOSAL 177 - 5 AAC 47.020. General provisions for seasons and bag, possession, annual, and size limits for the salt waters of the Southeast Alaska Area. Establish bag limit for thornyhead rockfish as follows:

Shortspined and longspined thornyhead rockfish may be taken from January 1 - December 31; bag and possession limit of one fish.

ISSUE: Currently there is no bag or possession limit on these long lived species of rockfish. The board seeks to establish bag and possession limits that provide for a reasonable level of angling opportunity and harvest while at the same time provide for protection against high levels of harvest that could be harmful to the health of stocks.

Shortspines (Sebastolobus alascanus) are one of the longest-lived fishes in the world and can live up to 80-100 years. Female longspined thorneyheads (Sebastolobus altivelis) mature by 25 years and can live up to 45 years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Harvest amounts could exceed biologically justified levels and cause stock depletion in localized areas or in broader regions.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All fishermen will benefit from having harvest levels maintained at sustainable levels.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Perhaps it could adversely affect those few fishermen who harvest these species in considerable numbers.

- 158 - OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Establish limits for all rockfish, but this proposal is specific to shortspined and longspined thornyhead rockfish. Also the board could consider an annual limit, but the daily bag and possession limit is thought to provide an effective safeguard.

The board may consider establishing a thornyhead rockfish bag limit as a statewide regulation.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Board of Fisheries (HQ-09F-173) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 178 - 5AAC 75.003. Emergency order authority. Clarify emergency order authority as follows:

PROBLEM: The emergency order authority provision is internally inconsistent. The introductory paragraph, read in isolation, would seem to prohibit changing a bag limit or method and means anytime that a specific bag limit or method and means is stated in a regulation designated as a management plan. However, the provisions that follow the introductory paragraph, in (1) and (2), indicate that the commissioner may modify the bag limits to manage for escapement goals. Both subsections (1)(A) and (2)(A) are triggered by escapement goals in management plans, clearly indicating that fisheries with management plans would be subject to changes. A literal reading of the initial paragraph would prohibit the department from changing bag and possession limits to achieve escapement goals and instead, would require more drastic actions such as total closures.

The department believes that these internal inconsistencies can be resolved by interpreting the introductory paragraph to only prohibit modification to bag and possession limits or methods and means under this section when there are explicit provisions in the management plan for increasing or decreasing a bag limit or changing a methods and means.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? There will continue to be uncertainty from the public in the department’s interpretation of the emergency order authority regulation.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public and agencies benefit from clear and consistent regulatory language.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

- 159 - OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Another solution would be to modify individual management plans as each management area comes before the Board during the three-year meeting cycle.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-09F-146) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 179 - 5 AAC 75.003. Emergency order authority. Clarify the emergency order authority as follows:

The commissioner may, by emergency order, change bag and possession limits and annual limits and alter methods and means in sport fisheries. These changes may not reduce the allocation of harvest among other user groups. An emergency order may not supersede bag and possession limits or methods and means established in regulatory management plans established by the Board of Fisheries. The commissioner will use emergency order authority to manage sport fishing opportunity in the following circumstances: (1) The commissioner or his authorized designee [MAY] will close if necessary or decrease sport fish bag and possession limits and restrict methods and means of harvest by emergency order in order to achieve established escapement goals [WHEN] in the following way: (A) If the total escapement of a species of anadromous fish is projected to be less than the escapement goal [FOR THAT SPECIES LISTED IN A MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF FISHERIES OR] established by the department and board, the department will close the sport fishery or reduce the bag and possession limits by emergency order to ensure the escapement goal will be achieved. When it is necessary to close the sport fishery it will be closed to fishing for that species.

(B) if the recreational harvest must be [CURTAILED] eliminated or reduced in any fishery for conservation reasons, the department may issue a “catch and release” only emergency order only if the escapement goal will be achieved and then only when the estimated hooking mortality is not projected to reduce the population of fish below the number required for spawning escapement or, in the case of resident species, below the level required for maintenance of the desired age and size distribution of the population; “catch and release” as a tool to address conservation under this section shall be labeled “conservation catch and release” to differentiate from catch and release regulations adopted by the Board of Fisheries for special management to create diversity in sport fisheries.

ISSUE: The department continues to use “closed to retention” and reduces bag limits instead of closing the fishery when the escapement goal will not be achieved and changes bag limits that are in management plans which is not legal. This proposal seeks to clarify the regulation.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued confusion and illegal emergency orders.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

- 160 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Ken Tarbox (SC-09F-014) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 180 - 5 AAC 75.020. Sport fishing gear. Define electric fishing reels as follows:

(a) Unless otherwise provided in 5 AAC 47 - 5 AAC 75, sport fishing may only be conducted by the use of a single line having attached to it not more than one plug, spoon, spinner, or series of spinners, or two flies, or two hooks. The line must be closely attended. (1) Power assisted fishing reels may not be used unless: (A) the power assisted fishing reel is mounted on a fishing rod by means of a reel seat, and; (B) the power assisted fishing reel assembly, motor, gearbox, fishing line, attached power cord, and any other reel attachments weigh no more than 15 pounds total when detached from the fishing rod. (C) For the purposes of this sub-section; (i) “power assisted fishing reel” means a reel used to deploy and retrieve a sport fishing line that is operated or assisted by any electric, hydraulic, or other mechanical power source other than by hand cranking a handle attached to the reel; (ii) “fishing rod” means a tapered, flexible rod typically used for sport fishing, equipped with a hand grip and a line guide system that guides the line from the reel to the tip of the rod, upon which is mounted a fishing reel used to deploy and retrieve the sport fishing line; (iii) “reel seat” means an attachment mechanism that holds the fishing reel to the rod using locking threaded rings, sliding bands, or other attachment devices and is designed to allow the reel to be readily detached from the fishing rod.

ISSUE: In 2007 attention was drawn to the legality of powered reels in the sport fishery in Southeast Alaska. The Department of Law reviewed the situation and found that current statutes and regulations are sufficiently broad to allow the use of powered reels in the sport fishery. Then various proposals, pro and con, expanded discussions before the Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska concerning the use of powered reels. The board did not take actions in local areas and directed the department to submit a proposal as a starting point to deal with this topic on a statewide basis. The language above was designed to start at some middle ground by allowing pole mounted power reels currently being used by some in the sport fishery and excluding the use of commercial jigging machines.

- 161 - WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The use of all powered reels, including gunnel mounted commercial level jigging machines and power troll gear, will be allowed in the sport fishery.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Sport fishermen wishing to use pole mounted powered fishing reels and persons wishing to prohibit the use of commercial fishing devices in the sport fishery.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Persons wishing to use commercial jigging machines or other commercial fishing gear in the sport fishery.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the request of the Board of Fisheries (HQ-09F-148) ******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal was previously considered by the board during the February 2009 meeting. It was tabled to the March 2010 Statewide Finfish meeting for possible adoption as a statewide regulation.

PROPOSAL 181 - 5 AAC 75.995. Definitions. Clarify definition of fishing rod and electric reel as follows:

A fishing rod is a tapering, often jointed rod, equipped with a hand grip and multiple line guides, upon which is mounted a hand powered, or electric reel used to deploy and retrieve the (trolling) fishing line.

ISSUE: This proposal addresses the problem of defining legal fishing gear. A definition of “fishing rod” is needed in the sport regulations to facilitate enforcement by Fish and Wildlife Protection.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved, enforcement will continue to have problems in enforcing gear types – i.e., fishing rods, gurdies, downriggers, etc.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Enforcement.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None

- 162 - PROPOSED BY: Mike Bethers (HQ-09F-025) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 182 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New Section. Prohibit the use of electric reels as follows:

5 AAC xx.xxx. Statewide methods, means, and general provisions – Finfish. Power assisted retrieval of sport fish (including the use of an electric reel) is prohibited in Alaska except, the following anglers may use an electric reel attached to a fishing rod to fish: i. anglers that have in their possession a copy of an approved official certification of disability form a government agency (i.e. declared disabled by the Federal Social Security Administration, the State Department of Worker’s Claims, the United States Railroad Retirement Board, The Teacher Retirement system, any state or country Department of Motor Vehicles of the United States office of Personnel Management);

ISSUE: Prohibit the use of electric (power-retrieved) sport fishing reels except for handicapped anglers. There has been recent increased in the use of electric reels and commercial jigging machines to harvest sablefish, deep water rockfish, and deep water halibut.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The use of electric reels and jigging machines will allow efficient access to deep water species, which have previously been insulated form sport fish harvest, and are species of great longevity. This gear is not ‘sporting” but is designed for efficient commercial harvest of deep water species.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource and commercial fishermen who have long targeted deep water species.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Commercial charter operations that have bought electric reels.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Age exceptions but this opened up too many enforcement issues with other anglers on board.

PROPOSED BY: Sitka AC (HQ-09F-047) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 183 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New Section. Prohibit use of electric reels as follows:

Add a new restriction to the method and means sections that reads: "The use of power to retrieve fish while sport fishing is prohibited except that an electric reel may be used provided that the angler has in possession a certificate from the Department of Fish and Game stating that the specific model of reel being used does not provide the user any advantage over a typical able- bodied angler using conventional tackle."

- 163 - The Board shall direct the department staff to determine and publish appropriate limits for the current draw (amps & volts), retrieval speed, battery life, etc. for electric reels that do not exceed the capability of a typical able-bodied angler using conventional tackle prior to issuing any such certificates.

ISSUE: Sport fishing regulations do not currently provide any restrictions on the use of powered reels. Hydraulic troll gurdies, commercial electric jigging machines, and electric downriggers with the leader tied directly to the cannonball (even without a separate rod and release mechanism) are all currently legal sport tackle per a recent legal finding.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Some people will take advantage of this lack of regulation to "sport fish" using tackle that is overly effective and not sporting. This gives these anglers an unfair advantage over those using traditional tackle. Some charter guides will feel pressure to purchase such gear for their client's use or risk seeing those clients hire another skipper that uses commercial gear.

High-powered electric and hydraulic reels are a very effective harvest means of harvesting deep water groundfish like shortraker and rougheye rockfish, thornyheads, blackcod and large halibut. Significant sport use of such gear for these species will greatly increase sport harvest rates and effort which would require significant changes to the way that these species are managed. The department's historical data would no longer be a useful predictor of harvest.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By eliminating any advantage for a typical angler to want to an electric reel, the department will be able to continue to utilize past catch records to predict future harvests, thus enabling more precise management of fishery resources.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users of the resource benefit from better management. The charter operators using traditional sport tackle will benefit from the continuing image of Alaska as a prime sport fishing destination, not degraded by the association with unsporting tackle. Also the same operators will not have to be politically associated with or compete (on the marketplace and on the water) with other charter outfits that concentrate on producing high volume catches at the expense of sport fishing ethics. Local sport fishermen who can’t afford to don’t want to use high-power commercial tackle to sport fish will also benefit from reduced competition on the water.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Charter clients that want to catch more fish than they can eat so that they can sell it back home will suffer if the highly-effective commercial tackle is not permitted. The charter operators that are marketing to this sort of client may also suffer.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered an out-right ban on electric reels, but was convinced that certain disabled individuals would not be able to fish otherwise. I also considered attempting to develop the specific limits of amperage, retrieval speed, battery capacity, etc myself, but figured that the department had more resources to consult with other experts in the field of human physiology and the department is also in the position to be perceived as neutral. I didn’t want this proposal to get hung up on a discussion of whether any particular specification

- 164 - that I proposed was appropriate. Any specification-based restriction that does not require pre- certification would be difficult to enforce because it would require enforcement personnel to determine in the field whether or not a particular reel met the specification. A restriction based on the configuration or appearance of the reel and or rod would only provide a superficial limitation as there are very powerful "normal-looking" reels intended for commercial tuna fishing available.

This proposal is intended to work alone or in conjunction with other proposals that would place restrictions on which anglers may use electric reels. By getting rid of any advantage that an able- bodied angler would gain from using an electric reel, the issue that an angler that was not permitted to use an electric reel might be tempted to use one if it was available is eliminated.

PROPOSED BY: Tad Fujioka (HQ-09F-048) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 184 - 5 AAC 75.xxx. New Section. Prohibit the use of felt soled wading boots as follows:

Use of footgear with soles of felt, or other absorbent fiber material, is prohibited while wading in freshwater streams in Alaska as of January 1, 2011.

This same proposal will be implemented in Southeast Alaska and should be implemented on a statewide basis.

ISSUE: Felt soled wading boots have been identified as a primary vector for transferring invasive species such as Whirling Disease, didymo (rock snot), mud snails and zebra mussels that have devastated fisheries else ware.

We would like to reduce the likelihood that these problems will be spread by fishermen within the state, or by visitors that may unknowingly bring or spread these species retained in moist felt soles of wading boots and waders.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Given the ever-growing number of locations being infected with invasive species it is simply a matter of time before Alaska will be subject to similar outbreaks. In fact, didymo or rock snot has already been detected in two streams near Juneau.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by essentially ruling out one means of invasive specie transmission, this proposal will help to maintain our fisheries at current levels or higher and will help ensure that State funds can be used to improve those fisheries rather than being used to fight invasive species outbreaks.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All users of Alaska fish resources will benefit from a better- protected fishery. Fishing equipment retailers will see increased revenues.

- 165 - WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Given the opportunity to phase-out use of felt soles over two full fishing seasons, we do not believe current users of felt soles will suffer. The benefits to our fisheries far exceed the incremental cost of replacing felt-soled waders or boots.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Ban wading - not practical. Require bleach treatment of felt soles-not enforceable and brings other concerns in areas of significant use.

PROPOSED BY: Trout Unlimited (HQ-09F-049) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 185 - 5 AAC 75.028. Use of underwater spear. (repeal and readopt). Clarify definition of underwater spear as follows:

In salt water, a spear or speargun may be used to take fish, subject to applicable seasons and bag limits, by a person who is completely submerged; the use of a shaft tipped with an explosive charge, commonly known as a bangstick or powerhead, is prohibited in fresh and salt water.

5AAC 75.995. Definitions.

(XX) “spear” means a shaft with a sharp point or fork-like implement attached to one end, used to thrust through the water to impale or retrieve fish, and which is operated by hand; a spear also includes a Hawaiian sling or pole spear which is a shaft propelled by a single loop of elastic material and is not equipped with a mechanical release or trigger.

(XX) “speargun” means a device designed to propel a spear through the water by means of elastic bands, compressed gas, or other mechanical propulsion to take fish; and is equipped with a mechanical release or trigger .

ISSUE: For many years there has been public confusion about the use of spearguns for sport fishing. Current language in 5 AAC 75.028 authorizes the use of “spears” to take fish by persons completely submerged in salt water. However, the term “spear” is not currently defined in 5AAC 75. There have been disputes over the years whether or not this includes spear guns, “bang sticks,” or pole spears. The new language defines needed terms and clearly describes what may and may not be used. These terms are generated to align with the current interpretation by department managers and Wildlife Troopers who enforce the regulations. Adoption of the new language will clarify an issue that has been vague for many years.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The public, management, and enforcement personnel will continue to have difficulty determining how the use of spearguns may be applied in sport fishing.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

- 166 - WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The public, department managers, and enforcement personnel who need clearly defined regulations to guide sport fishing activities by persons desiring to use spear guns.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the request of the Board of Fisheries (HQ-09F-147) ******************************************************************************

Note, this proposal was previously considered by the board during the December 2008 meeting. It was scheduled for the March 2010 Statewide Finfish meeting for possible adoption.

PROPOSAL 186 - 5 AAC 75.028. Use of underwater spear. Allow the use of underwater spear as follows:

In salt water, spears or spear guns may be used to take fish, subject to applicable seasons and bag limits, by persons who are completely submerged.”

ISSUE: Including the use of spear guns, along with spears, as acceptable forms of sport fishing. At present most divers don’t know that spear guns are not a legal form of sport fishing in Alaska, so many of them are using spear guns and breaking the law. Spear guns are much easier to use and safer. Attempting to take larger fish, such as halibut or larger lingcod, with a pole spear may be more dangerous than with a spear gun, as the energy lever of a pole spear is extremely low due to a lower likelihood of making a quick kill. Even with a spear gun, spear fishing is probably the most difficult form of sport fishing, and fewer fish are taken per fisherman than any other form of the sport.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the current regulation is enforced, fewer fish will be taken, divers may be cited for fishing illegally, and spear fishing will continue to be more dangerous.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The small numbers of divers who spearfish in Alaska.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Make divers aware of the current regulation and then enforce it. This would decrease the very small number of fish taken by divers.

PROPOSED BY: Howard Teas (HQ-09F-013) ******************************************************************************

- 167 -

PROPOSAL 187 - 5 AAC 75.038. Authorization for methods and means disability exemptions. Allow the use of bait by disabled anglers as follows:

Statewide: a use of bait provision for all species of salmon with proof of handicap/disability (on person).

ISSUE: Allow the use of bait, statewide, for all species of salmon for people mentally and or physically handicapped/disabled. The reason for this is that many of these individuals can reel a fish in, but are unable to cast.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The world is not going to split in two if nothing is done. However, there are a lot of handicapped/disabled fisherpersons whom this will benefit and allow them to more fully enjoy Alaska’s outdoors.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Handicapped/disabled people.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Gus Lamoureux (HQ-09F-004) ******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 188 - 5 AAC 75.067. Limitations for halibut; 5 AAC 75.995(20). Definitions; and 5 AAC 75.070(b). Possession of sport-caught halibut. Modify sport fishing regulations for halibut as follows:

Modify 5 AAC 75.067: Notwithstanding any other provision in 5 AAC 47 – 5 AAC 75, a [A] person may not take or possess halibut for sport or guided sport purposes in a manner inconsistent with the regulations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Modify 5 AAC 75.995(20): “possession limit” means the maximum number of unpreserved fish, except halibut, a person may have in his possession;

Repeal 5 AAC 75.070(b): [UNTIL BROUGHT TO SHORE AND OFFLOADED, NO PERSON MAY FILLET, MUTILATE, OR OTHERWISE DISFIGURE A HALIBUT IN ANY MANNER THAT PREVENTS THE DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT OR POSSESSED.]

- 168 - ISSUE: Halibut are managed by the federal government under an international treaty. All regulations pertaining to halibut must be adopted by federal agencies. The State of Alaska can not have regulations for halibut unless they mirror existing federal regulations.

Federal regulations, especially those for guided sport anglers, have been modified frequently by federal agencies in recent years to stay within harvest limits adopted by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The changes recommended in this proposal will make state halibut regulations consistent with federal regulations and ensure that future federal changes are mirrored in state regulations. Each time the federal regulations are changed the state regulations become inconsistent and incorrect, leading to confusion and citations for fishermen.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Inconsistencies between federal and state halibut regulations will continue and possibly increase in the future.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? NA

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anglers in all sport fishing user groups who will only have one set of regulations to adhere to.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unknown.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (HQ-09F-150) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 189 - 5 AAC 75.075. Sport fishing services and sport fishing guide services; license requirements; regulations of activities. Require a client-guide agreement for each client on a sport fishing charter trip as follows:

Require a client – guide agreement between the fishing party and the licensed fishing guide performing the service.

ISSUE: Many times, guided fishing trips are booked by businesses who are not licensed fishing guides and then sub-contracted out without the knowledge of the party booking the trip and they have no idea who will actually perform their guided fishing trip. Clients should know at the time of booking that they will be fishing with a licensed guide and the details and experience level of the guide that will be fishing their group.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Clients will continue to be unaware that the guide business that they booked with will not be the guide that will actually perform the service, resulting in a bait and switch where the client is paying much more for their trip than what the fishing guide charges or with a very inexperienced guide.

- 169 - WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. This would increase the quality of the fishing trip many anglers consider a trip of a lifetime.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Guided anglers and licensed fishing guides.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Unlicensed fishing guides and booking agents that could no longer jack up the price of fishing charters above the retail price what the guide performing the service charges. Could still make a commission based on the retail price of the licensed guide performing the trip.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Only allow licensed guides to sell fishing trips.

PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (SC-09F-019) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 190 - 5 AAC 75.003. Emergency order authority. Allow crew members to retain fish when clients are onboard as follows:

Charter crewmembers are unguided anglers and therefore their catch is not recorded under guided anglers. The number of lines in the water cannot exceed the number of paying clients on board.

ISSUE: The current regulation allows the commissioner to limit charter vessel crewmembers from retaining fish while clients are on board. This regulations discriminates against specific citizens based on their profession and should be repealed. Justification for closure is triggered when guideline harvest levels are projected to exceed the GHL for guided anglers for any species. Since the charter crew can only retain fish by expending personal resources in the form of fuel and equipment or by chartering under a guide, this regulation is requiring that some but not all citizens must expend personal resources outside of any commercial endeavor to harvest Alaska’s resources. This regulation discriminates between Alaskan residents who provide a service to the public to gather Alaska’s resource for personal consumption and those who gather Alaska’s resource for personal profit. Commercial fisherman and crew, can retain or sell their catch for personal consumption or profit without expending additional resources to harvest fish for personal use. The regulation discriminates among users involved in commercial endeavors. This regulation requires that a particular user group must obtain personal use fish by personal means only and cannot be harvested during a commercial operation as a fringe benefit.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Charter crewmembers will be continue to be discriminated against and not allowed to retain fish.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No, eliminates discrimination against Alaskan citizens.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Charter crewmembers who can retain fish without expending additional resources or giving up a day’s wage in order to catch personal use

- 170 - resources. What becomes of the resource is up to the angler’s discretion, as long as it is not wasted, bartered, or sold.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nobody.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

PROPOSED BY: Matanuska Valley Advisory Committee (SC-09F-001) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 191 - 5 AAC 75.995. Definitions. Define official time for sport fisheries as follows:

Define official time for fisheries regulated by time.

ISSUE: For fisheries that are regulated by time, there is no definition of “official time”. Is it GPS Time? Cell phone time? Time of the watch of the enforcement officer? Time of the watch of the witness that observed somebody fishing before or after regulation time? In many fishing tournaments throughout the world regulated by time, GPS time is considered official time, as all GPS’s will display the same time.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Not all watches on anglers fishing are set the same. Some are 5 – 10 minutes fast or slow, resulting in citations issued based on the time of the watch of the witness. Citations have been issued in the past for fishing as little as 5 minutes before or after permitted time. An official time needs to be established.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Will help prevent citations being issued when no offense was committed and only based on a witness whose watch was faster or slower than another angler’s watch.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everybody, including enforcement officers and the court system.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Don’t regulate fisheries by time.

PROPOSED BY: Mel Erickson (SC-09F-020) *******************************************************************************

PROPOSAL 192 - 5 AAC 75.995(1). Definitions. Establish a definition of “artificial fly” as follows:

An elaboration the definition of “common methods known as flying tying.” Suggest the definition allude to the fact that the “materials and chemicals designed and produces” for flies must be physically tied or affixed onto the hook proper, utilizing a material different that the

- 171 - fishing line attached to the fly. Another option would be to address that is not acceptable such as yarn (any material) in an egg loop or anything affixed to the hook or above the hook without the application of a tying thread.

ISSUE: The definition of “Artificial Fly.” Specifically the portion of the definition that says “Common methods known as fly tying.”

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Those of us attempting to follow established regulations may inadvertently end up in contradiction with an Alaska State Trooper who believes that “Yarn inserted through an egg loop” is not a common method know as fly tying. This method is very common and sometimes folks even knot the yarn directly onto or above the hook thinking they are tying flies. The arbitrariness of the definition needs to be removed.

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? If one believes there is a correlation to the time spent in advance producing or procuring an authorized fly and the expected treatment of the resource then yes. Those that properly prepare for fishing outings are more likely to treat the resource well.

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those of us that do our best to follow regulations and those selling flies.

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those that do not take sufficient time to thoroughly understand regulations.

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I support whatever direction ADF&G supports as long as the average fly fisher person can understand the definition of “artificial fly.”

PROPOSED BY: Mark Sisinyak (HQ-09F-005) ******************************************************************************

- 172 -