Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Biological, Economic & Social Values of a Sockeye Salmon Stream in Bristol Bay AK 1982BRI 016 Ps , ; IGHSMITH 42.225 PRINTED INU.S.A. i ] is $ age frile Leto SKF . ’ . 4 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON L7EV/ @2 FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND INSTITUTE FOR MARINE STUDIES & UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY RECEIVED NOV 8 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY WORKSHOP ON THE VALUE OF ANADROMOUS FISH RESOURCES Purpose: The general problem of valuing Alaska's anadromous fish resources is addressed in order to assist in the process of evaluating possible development projects in the State such as hydroelectric developments, mineral extraction, timber harvesting and related projects. A study of Tazimina River salmon stocks will serve as an example of the kind of approach envisioned necessary to sound policy decisions about development projects and anadromous fish stocks. Moderator: Clem Tillion, Director International Fisheries and External Affairs Place: North Pacific Management Council 605 West 4th Avenue (Large auditorium) Anchorage, Alaska Time: November 23, 1982 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Program I. Introduction - The Basic Questions - Clem Tillion - moderator II. The Tazimina River Study A. Biological Aspects - 0. Mathisen B. Economic Aspects - J. Crutchfield C. Social and Cultural Aspects - S. Langdon III. Panel Discussion IV. General Discussion V. Review and Recommendations FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE College of Fisheries University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Circular No. 82-2 THE BIOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL VALUES OF A SOCKEYE SALMON STREAM IN BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA A Case Study of Tazimina River J. A. Crutchfield Institute for Marine Studies University of Washington S. Langdon Department of Anthropology University of Alaska, Anchorage and O. A. Mathisen and P. H. Poe Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington October 1982 Il. TIE. Iv. VI. VII. VIII. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . 2 ee ee we we we ew we we CONCEPTUAL AND MEASUREMENT PROBLEMS ......+-+.-s A, . Biological Problems ..-.. 3 .6*.0*- 69 2 0 0 0 0 0 B. = Economic ‘Issues. . vee bis ee ote 6 ew oe ew te @; Social and Cultural Issues .:% 1.2. e:6 ote 0 0-2 o D. Issues Regarding Damages . . 1... 2 e+ ee ee ee TAZIMINA RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTION, 1956-1981 . Ae Methods be ac ts ee ee ee ow ee B. Assumptions” =. 1 2. 1 0 0 tw we ee tw tw ew C. Results and Discussion... .. «1. 2. 2+ e+ ee eee PROJECTED TAZIMINA RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTION, 1981-2030 . 2. 2. 6 6 se ewe se we ew A. Methods and AssumptionS” 06S So. ot ott eee B. -Results and Discussion ......-«+-+-+e-e-e+ee VALUATION OF THE TAZIMINA PRODUCTION. ......-. A. -Mem@iing of "Valse"... . - 3 + wee ee te 8 B. Use of ‘Market Prices . . 2. 2. 2. + 6 © e ee eb we C. Valuation of Recreational and Subsistence Catches D. Subsistence Fishing ..... +. +++ +e eee E.. Discounting Procedure .. ...« « «© ee ee ew CALCULATION OF VALUE . . . 2. «© 2 © ee ee we ew ww DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE AND TYPES OF USER GROUPS .... A. Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna Village Residents . . . seis 0 oe 8 0 ee ww B. Naknek-Kvichak District Commercial Fishermen... C. Fly-in Subsistence and Sport/Recreational Fishermen .°. 3. 6 #2 0:8 © vw pe ew ew we ee REFERENCES . . 2. 2 2 © © © © © © © ew we we we ew we we ww ii Page wn rrWWw Ww woouw 11 i 11 13 13 14 18 20 21 23 25 25 33 36 39 Number Figure LIST OF TABLES Kvichak River sockeye salmon total run including estimates of Japanese high seas catch, 1956-1981 . Comparison of estimated Tazimina River sockeye salmon runs to total Kvichak River system runs, L9SGa LISA 0 see a RE er Oe Relative importance of Tazimina River salmon runs to the total sockeye salmon runs of the Kvichak River system by 5-year cycle period, 1956-1980, and relative contribution of Tazimina River salmon projected over next ten salmon cycles, 1981-2030. Ex-vessel prices of Bristol Bay salmon, 1970-1981 . Newhalen River system... ... 2.2 eee eee Nondalton subsistence salmon catches: 1963-1980 . . Number of drift and set net units operating in the Naknek-Kvichak district: 1978-1980. ...... Number of subsistence salmon permits issued by village: 1976-1980 oo 226: 6 eciptenecee tt BSE LIST OF FIGURES Proportion of Nondalton subsistence harvest, by weight: salmon, moose, caribou, beaver, and. freshwater fish i... 6. MS ee i Nie PE iii Page o:e 6 : 7 Py nd? . Fal erred - 30 34 e387 Page e131 ABSTRACT Fishing and fish processing has been the only stable industry in Alaska during the last century. However, in recent years other industries have entered such as logging, large-scale mining, development of oil and hydro-electric resources in addition to an expanding population with new settlements and roads opening wilderness areas. All of theseevents impact on salmon production in various ways. The question is how to assess the effect of this impact or the underlying risk to the sustained production of salmon. The examined case of the Tazimina River represents a first step towards answering this question through identifying elements one shauld consider in settling conflicts between different user groups. Ultimately this is a consideration of costs and benefits together with biological and socio-political factors. Equally problematic is how the many factors can be related to each other in a decision making process. Normally an economic analysis can be done easily for developmental schemes; but the value of a living organism like a salmon race adapted to a habitat over the last 15,000 years presents exceedingly difficult problems due to the lack of a long time series of biological data and sociological data related to defining its true value to the different human user groups. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The biological data span a quarter of a century and have been generated from a variety of sources. There have been a number of biologists employed by the Fisheries Research Institute over the years in addition to observations and information supplied by the local population. All these people are hereby acknowledged. Catch and effort data together with escapement counts have been supplied by the Commercial Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game while the Sports Fish Division provided information on the recreational fishery. This study was supported by grants from the salmon processors in Bristol Bay and the Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association. The authors acknowledge with appreciation all the assistance received. I. INTRODUCTION The State of Alaska is becoming more and more concerned with the problems associated with competitive use of natural resource systems. In particular, the impacts of forestry, hydroelectric development, and mining and other developments on fisheries, wildlife, and natural habitat are of serious and increasing concern. A recent conference in Juneau on economic evaluation of fisheries and wildlife habitat reflected the state's continuing interest in valuation procedures that provide better guides to allocation of its natural resource endowment. In brief, the problem involves finding quantitative measures of output and economic value for fisheries and other living resources that can be compared, in conventional benefit-cost terms, with competing values generated by commercial users of the same land-water systems. As indicated below, there are serious conceptual and measurement problems in assigning economic values to fishery resources, particularly where recreational or subsistence usage is involved. In addition, there are already well-known difficulties in projecting biological and environmental changes into the figure, given the inherent instability of many fish populations. Yet somehow the job must be done; otherwise we run the risk of assigning a value of zero to resources and resource uses that clearly are of great importance to the general public. In effect, measurement techniques that produce answers significantly better than zero are important to the decision-making process, even though they may be less precise than we would like. In this brief study, we have undertaken such tasks with respect to the Tazimina River sockeye salmon resource, where construction of a hydroelectric generating project in the upper reaches of the river has recently been under consideration. Obviously, this is only one of many cases in which energy projects and other industrial and forest harvesting projects will compete with fish and wildlife. It is not necessarily the most important. Nevertheless, even a preliminary look at the techniques available for generating the appropriate numbers that will permit public display of the values in tidiecice that are placed at risk is useful in itself and as an indicator of needed research and data acquisition. The basic approach followed involves a series of steps as follows: 1. Estimate the contribution of the Tazimina River stock to total Kvichak sockeye salmon production and to estimated catches from the Kvichak system. 2. Estimate future sockeye production from the Tazimina River under an optimal management scheme. 3. Define the population groups that benefit from the Tazimina River resources, the degree of their dependence thereon, and the importance of the salmon resource to the overall social structure of the area. 4. Determine gross and net value to catches, discounted to present values, where quantifiable in monetary terms. Describe other social values not measurable in monetary units. II. CONCEPTUAL AND MEASUREMENT PROBLEMS A. Biological Problems 1. Data with respect to run size are scanty and must be pieced together from a number of sources. 2. As in all Alaska sockeye streams, annual runs are subject to wide variations. Interpretation of long-term trends is made more difficult by the fact that the Kvichak system was badly depleted by overfishing and is now in long-term disequilibrium as proper management seeks to rebuild its runs to capacity. What levels of production can be expected in the future? 3. Neither can the production from any stream be seen in isolation. In the evolution of a species and adaptation of its races to specific streams of a watershed, the various production units exert a buffering action and dampen the natural variability always present. 4. Segregation of the effects of overfishing and environmental change. This is not a major problem in the case of the Tazimina, but could be serious in situations where the runs to be valued are close to population centers. B. Economic issues 1. What level of prices should be used: fishermen, wholesale or retail? Are ex-vessel prices an accurate measure of economic values conveyed to fishermen? 2. How should future prices be projected? 3. In reducing gross values to net values, what type of deduction should be made for fishing costs (actual or potential, average or incremental)? 4. How can values be established for fish taken by sportsmen and by subsistence users that are comparable with those of the commercial catch? C. Social and cultural issues 1. What population groups benefit from the Tazimina River salmon, and what is the degree of dependence on these resources? 2. How do these salmon fit into the overall adaptation of the different groups to their present environment? 3. What alternative resources are potentially available to the different groups? D. Issues regarding damages It is impossible to forecast with even a semblance of accuracy the impact of a hydroelectric project on the fishery output of a given stream. In the case of the Tazimina River, the proposed dam may cause little or no direct damage, since it would be above all known spawning areas. On the other hand, the indirect effects involving building and use of access roads, secondary industry development, etc., are often more damaging to the fish runs than the original project. There simply is no way of anticipating these effects at the present time. III. TAZIMINA RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTION, 1956-1981 The past importance of Tazimina River sockeye salmon production relative to the total production of the Kvichak River system can be estimated from FRI Tazimina River stream survey data (Poe and Mathisen 1982) and ADF&G run data for the Kvichak River system. A brief description of the methods and underlying assumptions follows. A. Methods 1. Annual runs of sockeye salmon to the Kvichak River system were compiled from ADF&G data (see attached ADF&G table) and are presented in Tables 1 and 2. 2. The data presented in Tables 1 and 3 of Poe and Mathisen (1982) were used as the basic data from which true escapements to the Tazimina River were estimated. The procedure was to: a. Expand all peak spawning ground indexes by a factor of 2, which approaches the absolute values. b. For years when the index was less than 5,000, 20% of the Nondalton subsistence catch was also assigned. For the years when there was no estimate of the Nondalton subsistence catch, the mean catch value was used as the catch. c. For years when the index was greater than 5,000, 10% of the Nondalton subsistence catch was assigned. 3. The estimated true Tazimina River escapements were expanded to represent total runs by multiplying the true escapement values by the ratio of the Kvichak system total run to the Kvichak escapement. Table 1. Kvichak River sockeye salmon total run including estimates of Japanese high seas catch, 1956-1981. i a a a a Sh ae ie ae “eB Year RETURN S.OC.KEYE SALMON of (Year of life) Total Return 3 4 5 6 7 8 Return 1956 0 10,179,119 3,969,232 305,379 0 0 14,453,730 1957 0 ~ 69,481 8,645,185 1,209,824 0 0 9,924,490 1958 0 91,065 403,819 676,637 6,602 0 Pt 783123 1959 13,600 255,673 663,864 63,183 1,619 0 997,939 1960 7,315 23,508,669 741,495 0 0 0 24,257,479 1961 0 226,398 12,754,680 795,292 35,278 11,678 13,823,326 1962 320 69,883 3,437,123 1,316,231 0 0 4,823,557 1963 369 194,250 179,476 261,526 334 0 635,955 1964 1,272 1,397,056 318,351 26,540 15757 0 1,744,976 1965 0 317,410 46,326,172 12,839 19 ,682 0 46,676,103 1966 0 95,941 2,414,756 6,278,649 0 0 8,789,346 1967 7,911 49,455 4,742,900 665,826 6,303 0 5,472,395 1968 23,489 ~ 2,083,087 675,600 406,404 0 0 3,188,580 1969 15,158 9,787,227 2,661,545 354,444 7,493 0 12,825,867 1970 0 481,432 32,065,742 680,679 18,686 0 33,246,539 1971 0 321,372 5,254,532 1,345,410 10,903 0 6,940,217 1972 0 271,225 1,006,779 345,660 1,613 0 1,625,277 1973 792 140,559 131,062 77,272 523 0 350,208 1974 0 82,683 4,459,742 156,483 0 0 4,698,908 1975 0 260,016 14,337,220 593,151 1,784 0 15,192,171 1976 0 248,302 2,191,956 1,222,013 10,324 0 3,672,595 1977 8,944 566,096 1,364,702 291,702 11,335 0 2,242,579 1978 5,334 6,538,743 1,244,278 301,743 0 0 8,090,098 1979 4,807 5,821,927 18,364,534 567,996 0 0 24,759,264 1980 46,961 5,106,829 29,461,221 768,975 0 0 35,383,986 1981 0 1,840,077 4,626,650 565,148 4,548 0 7,036,423 Source: Compiled from ADF&G table entitled : Kvichak River sockeye total run from brood year including estimates of Japanese high séas catch ( 9/03/81). Table 2. Comparison of estimated Tazimina River sockeye salmon runs to total Kvichak River system runs, 1956-1981. NN TT KVICHAK RIVER SYSTEM TAZIMINA RIVER eee SSS q) (2) (3) (4) GS) (6) q@ (8) @) (20) Year Counted Catch Total Run Catch % Ratio Peak Betimated Total Contribution Run 2 Total of Escapement (Cc) (Ra) Total Run R/E Spewner True Run Evichak (C) Kvichek Run Run (E) (+2) (42) (2+3x100) (341) Index Escapement (5x7) (8-7) (8+3x100) 1956 9,443,318 5,010,412 14,453,730 34.67 1.53 32,300 ° 67,390 103,107 35,417 71 1957 2,842,810 7,081,680 9,924,490 71.% 3.49 10,000 22,790 56,747 -80 1958 534,785 - 643,338 1,178,123 54.61 2.20 600 6,779 8,135 1.27 1959 680,000 317,939 997,939 31.80 1.47 150 5,879 2,763 87 1960 14,630,000 9,627,479 24,257,479 -39.69 1.66 55,000 112,790 74,441 77 1961 3,705,849 10,117,477 13,823,326 73.19 3.73 30,000 62,790 171,417 1.69 1962 2,580,884 2,242,673 4,823,557 46.49 1.87 4,000 13,579 11,814 53 1963 338,760 297,195 635,955 46.73 1.88 ° 4,400 1.48 1964 957,120 787,856 1,744,976 45.15 1.82 150 5,986 _ +76 1965 26,325,926 22,350,177 46,676,103 47.88 1.92 49,100 93,610 oh? 1966 3,775,164 5,014,162 8,789,346 57.05 2.33 4,800 24,951 50 1967 3,216,208 2,256,187 5,472,395 41.23 1.70 1,560 6,328 +28 1968 2,557,440 631,140 3,188,580 19.79 1.25 250 1,810 +28 1969 8,394,204 4,431,663 12,825,867 4.55 1.53 22,610 26,299 59 1970 13,935,306 19,311,233 33,246,539 58.08 2.9 85,450 243,511 1.26 1971 2,387,392 4,552,825 6,940,217 65.60 2.91 12,925 53,592 1.18 1972 1,010,000 615,277 1,625,277 37.87 1.61 20 2,960 1973 226,554 123,654 350,208 35.31 1.55 2 953 1974 4,433,480 265,428 4,698,908 5.65 1.06 104,470 12,713 4.78 1975 13,140,450 2,051,721 15,192,171 13.51 1.16 149,950 48,764 2.33 1976 ©=.1,965,282 1,707,313 3,672,595 46.49 1.87 16,390 30,31 1.77 1977, 1,341,144 901,435 2,242,579 40.20 1.67 7,205 11,475 1.28 1978 46,149,288 3,940,810 6,090,098 48.71 1.95 146 ,900 280,753 7.12 1979 11,218,434 13,540,830 24,759,264 54.69 2.21 303,750 2,229,835 1,220,860 9.01 1980 22,505,268 12,678,718 35,383,986 36.40 1.57 128,500 658,253 238,983 2.86 1981 _1,754,358 5,282,065 _7,036,423 75.07 4.01 28,215 232,359 174,414 3.30 Total 156,049,444 135,980,687 292 1,394,307 3,050,875 5,894,572 _ 2,843,397 226,554 123,652 3 a3 5.5 1.06 $ 1,733 2,686 953 ~28 Range To To To To to To To To To To 26,325,926 22,350,177 46,676,103 75.07 4.01 503,750 1,008,975 _ 2,229,835 __ 1,220,860 9.01 Percent ti Mean a5 .68 Z.01 1.77 (2) Frow cumulative totals 2 46.56 1,87 2.02 Data Sources: (1)Kvichak run data compiled from ADF&G table entitled: Kvichak River sockeye total run from brood year including estimates of Japanese high seas catch ( 9/03/81). (2)Tazimina River run data expanded from basic data presented in Poe and Mathisen (1982). B. Assumptions 1. Expansion of peak spawning ground indexes by multiplication by 2 is reasonable. 2. Allocation of 20% and 10% of the Nondalton subsistence catch in years of small runs and moderate to large runs, respectively, is reasonable. 3. Spawning ground indexes for Tazimina River have been consistent and are comparable over this period (i.e., the effectiveness of surveys has remained constant). 4. The exploitation rate on Tazimina River stocks in the Bristol Bay commercial fishery is the same as all other Kvichak stocks within each year. C. Results and Discussion The relative past importance of Tazimina River sockeye salmon runs to the total Kvichak River system runs is made in Table 2. Obviously, acceptance of the assumptions can be questioned and some or many of them may be violated in some years. Expansion of the indexes by 2 in small and moderate years may be reasonable, while in years of large runs it may not be, as the accuracy of aerial surveys is inversely proportional to the density of populations. The assumption that the effectiveness of the surveys has remained constant is also questionable as increased efficiency may explain a part of the indicated increased production of Tazimina River in recent years (Table 2). The assumptions concerning exploitation of Tazimina River stocks by commercial and subsistence fisheries are certainly also suspect, due to changes in the timing and amount of effort over the years, and other uncertainties related to the segregation in time and space of the different Kvichak stocks. It is accepted that part of the recent increased production of Tazimina River and the Newhalen River-Lake Clark system as a whole has resulted from the occurrence of certain environmental conditions particularly favorable to salmon survival coinciding with a lack of or reduced early season commercial harvest by the Bristol Bay fishery caused by either price negotiations (e.g., 1969, 1979 and 1980) or the anticipation of a small return (e.g., 1974, 1975 and 1978). For example, in 1979 the contribution of Tazimina River stocks (Table 2) to the Kvichak catch most certainly errs on the high side due to the absence of any substantial fishing during the early part of the Kvichak run, and the further suggestion that Tazimina River fish were more strongly represented in the early part of the run. For these reasons the information presented here should be accepted with caution, and regarded as an initial attempt to estimate the relative importance of the Tazimina River salmon resource to the total production of sockeye salmon in the Kvichak River system. 11 IV. PROJECTED TAZIMINA RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTION, 1981-2030 The future importance of Tazimina River sockeye salmon production relative to the total production of the Kvichak system over the next fifty years is estimated as follows. A. Methods and Assumptions 1. The basic data are presented in Tables 1 and 3 of Poe and Mathisen (1982) and in Tables 1 and 2 above. 2. It is assumed that the best estimate of Tazimina River potential production is represented by runs during the most recent Kvichak salmon cycle, 1976-1980, since runs prior to this period were in the rebuilding Process, or more specifically recovering from the recent unfavorable environmental conditions of the early 1970's and the long-term effects of overfishing during the historical period of the Kvichak fishery. 3. The average run to Tazimina River, 1976-1980 (712,000), is then used to project runs over ten 5-year salmon cycles, or the next fifty years. B. Results and Discussion The total estimated contribution of Tazimina River salmon to the total Kvichak River system over the next ten salmon cycles, or the period 1981-2030, is 35.6 million sockeye salmon (Table 3). It can be argued that this is too high or too low, but again this is based on the prestated assumption that the potential production of Tazimina River is considered to be represented by the estimated production from the most recent 5-year salmon cycle, 1976-1980. 12 Table 3. Relative importance of Tazimina River salmon runs to the total sockeye salmon runs of the Kvichak River system by 5-year cycle period, 1956-1980, and relative contribution of Tazimina River $7imon projected over next ten salmon cycles, 1981-2030.=' KVICHAK RIVER SYSTEM TAZIMINA RIVER (1) (2) (3) (4) Total Average Total Average % Contribution Period run run run run 4+2x100) 1956-1960 50,812,000 10,162,000 393,000 79,000 77 n=5 1961-1965 67,704,000 13,541,000 478,000 96,000 s¥1 n=5 1966-1970 63,523,000 12,705,000 563,000 113,000 89 n=5 1971-1975 28,807,000 5,761,000 670,000 134,000 2.33 n=5 1976-1980 74,149,000 14,830,000 3,558,000 712,000 4.80 n=5 1981-2030 35,600, 0002/ 712,000 4.80 n=50 1/ =" Includes estimates of high seas catch of Bristol Bay sockeye and all numbers rounded to nearest thousand fish. / Average run 1976-1980 x 50. In Data Sources: Kvichak runs - Kvichak run data compiled from ADF&G table entitled: Kvichak River sockeye total run from brood year including estimates of Japanese high seas catch (9/03/81). Tazimina River runs - Poe, P.H. and O.A. Mathisen. 1982. Tazimina River sockeye salmon studies - Evaluation of spawning ground survey data. Final Rep. Contract No. 12023- 006-20 Dames and Moore, FRI-UW-8201. 30 pp. Table 2, this report. 13 V. VALUATION OF THE TAZIMINA PRODUCTION A. Meaning of "Value" It should be noted that there are several different definitions of "value of a fishery" which are perfectly acceptable for the specific purposes intended, but which can be confusing, if not clearly identified. In conventional economic usage it means the market value of the product generated by the fishery (that is, willingness to pay) at the ex-vessel level, minus associated costs of production. In this sense it measures the gain (or loss) in national income with an increase or decrease in the level of the fishery. This is the same definition of value that underlies benefit cost analysis, and use of the term in this sense would permit direct comparison of fishery values with those of competing land and water users. The term is also used in the sense of regional impact; that is, the increase or decrease in incomes in a region if the fishery were increased or decreased in size. Basically this means the amount of income generated by the sale of the fish taken, at the level of processing realized before they are sold out of the region, minus the costs of the inputs which have to be imported into the region in order to carry on the activity. This is, again, a useful and meaningful concept of value, but it does not measure the gain or loss to the national economy from the change in the size of the fishery, and cannot be used in comparisons with other resource users in the benefit/cost framework. Both definitions have their uses, and both should be developed wherever possible in evaluating any project which may have the effect of increasing or decreasing a fishery. It is important, however, that the uses of the 14 two terms be clearly identified, and that they not be mixed in analysis. There is still another type of value, social rather than economic in nature, that becomes particularly important when a project is expected to impact resident groups with significantly different cultures and social organization. These impacts may range from mild to severely disruptive. There is no conceptual or empirical way in which they can be valued in dollars and cents, yet they may represent the most serious and pervasive costs to be borne by society. In the case at hand they are obviously too important to be ignored, even though they cannot be assessed in conventional economic measures. In this study we are concerned with both economic values in the conventional benefit-cost sense and with the social values involving potential project impacts on identified local groups and their social organization. B. Use of Market Prices In computing the value of a fishery in this conventional net economic benefits sense, basic reliance is placed on market prices for fish and for labor, capital, and materials required to produce fish. These represent an objective evidence of willingness to pay and, in general, appear to be readily available. Unfortunately, however, some serious problems arise in actual practice. 1. The price paid for fish ex vessel does not always equal the full economic value transferred. In Bristol Bay, in particular, the full amount of the payment to fishermen should include the value of boat storage, financing, food, fuel, and other non-price benefits that are often provided 15 to fishermen by processors. These are clearly part of the overall "price," but are very difficult to measure, since they are not generally applicable to all fishermen equally. 2. Conventional benefit-cost analysis assumes that the price paid for labor represents the full social cost of that labor - that is, the amount of other production lost if labor is shifted from some other gainful occupa- tion to fishing. In many fisheries, the Bristol Bay operation being a case in point, alternative occupations for fishermen are few and far between. Hence, the loss in other production when fishermen, particularly local people, are employed on the Bay may come very close to zero, since the fishermen would otherwise be underemployed or unemployed. 3s The management regime has a great deal to do with the calculation of net economic benefits from the fishery. Under purely open access or common property conditions, the normal process of unrestricted entry will lead inevitably to dissipation of most of the net economic benefits the fishery is capable of generating. Much the same thing will occur if a limited entry program of only partial effectiveness is employed, with very large amounts of excess capacity remaining in the industry (the Bristol Bay case). The issue is whether the costs of operation to be deducted from gross market value are those which would be incurred if the fishery were operating at full efficiency or those associated with the present inefficient mode of operation. 4, It should also be pointed out that when a fishery such as the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries is under limited entry regulation, but with substantial excess capacity, moderate changes in the number of fish available 16 will probably have virtually no effect on costs of operation. Given the method of management employed in Bristol Bay, all the vessels licensed to fish will be fishing "flat out" during the open periods. The effect of an increase or decrease of three or four percent in the available fish will be to increase or decrease slightly catch per unit effort, but will almost certainly have no perceptible effect on effort itself. Over a longer period of time, some modest changes in the number of licensed units might occur, but this seems unlikely in view of the past history of sales of the readily tradeable entry permits. Under these circumstances, the net economic value of a change in the availability of Bristol Bay fish for the Tazimina run, for example, would be almost indistinguishable from the change in gross economic value — certainly no less than 85-95 percent. It is clear from Table 4 that ex-vessel prices for Bristol Bay sockeye have varied widely from year to year (particularly in recent years), and that prices have increased very rapidly since 1976. Because of changes in the competitive situation in the Bristol Bay market and the world-wide increase in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) prices of salmon products, it seems appropriate to use an average of 1979-1981 prices for value future production. We have also assumed that 50 percent of the future catch will be canned and 50 percent moved in frozen channels. On balance, the prices used probably are very much on the conservative side. They do not reflect non-price values conveyed to fishermen; they assume real prices of salmon will not increase in the next few decades; they assumed approximately the same proportion of fish will move into the higher-valued frozen usage that has occurred over the past few years. On 17 Table 4. Ex-vessel prices of Bristol Bay salmon, 1970-1981. Ex-vessel price/1b prey Year Canned Frozen (Canned) 1970 149 73 1971 161 -97 1972 +167 1.00 1973 +217 1.54 1974 +298 1.73 1975 -370 2.04 1976 520 : 3g 1977 -595 3.99 1978 -680 4.01 1979 - 800 1325 4.72 1980 -570 -570 3.19 1981 +750 +750 4.80 18 all accounts, it seems likely that the price actually prevailing in future years may be somewhat higher, but there is simply no way of estimating it. C. Valuation of Recreational and Subsistence Catches The use of commercial ex-vessel prices is not appropriate for recreational and subsistence catches. As indicated above, a varying but quite substantial portion of the Tazimina run is taken in subsistence fisheries, particularly in the Nondalton area. There is also a consider- able amount of recreational fishing for sockeye, primarily by fly-in visitors from the Anchorage area. Proper valuation of recreational activity is important. Other studies have invariably shown that "meat values" for recreational fishing under- estimate real values so badly that they can be seriously misleading. Moreover, it appears likely that recreational usage may increase moderately over time in step with general increases in Alaska tourism. Unfortunately data are inadequate at this time to permit more than very rough answers to the two key questions: What level of recreational fishing can be attributed to the Tazimina?, and, What would users be willing to pay rather than do without the opportunity to engage in that fishing? It is impossible to determine directly the number of angler days properly attributed to the Tazimina. The only data available are the estimates of days fished and catches developed from the ADF&G Division of Sport Fish mail surveys. 19 Table 5. Newhalen River System. Catch Year Days fished Sockeye salmon Rainbow 1979 2,672 1,163 255 1980 4,013 715 629 » 1981 1,832 1,490 _250 Average 2,839 LJaZ3, 378 Source: Louis Gwartney, Biologist, Sport Fish, ADF&G, King Salmon, Alaska. These data are for the Newhalen River system, of which the Tazimina River is one part. There is no way to break out days spent on the Tazimina or the proportion of the catch made up of Tazimina fish. For the years 1979- 1981 a rough guess would place the contribution of the Tazimina at about 25 percent of the total. On this basis the number of angler days attributed to the Tazimina would be about 710. We are fully aware of the shakiness of this estimate. The number of anglers fishing the Tazimina (or taking Tazimina River fish in other waters) will vary widely from year to year, depending - among other things - on weather, water conditions, and availability of fish. In addition, the assumption that the level of sport fishing will remain at 1979-1981 levels may be unduly conservative. Obviously, more research is needed to resolve these questions; they simply can't be answered satisfactorily with data now available. With respect to willingness to pay, four basic techniques are being 20 explored by resource economists. Two of these, the household production function approach and the hedonic method (see Brown 1982) can be ruled out in the Tazimina case because of data requirements that simply can't be met. The travel cost model could conceivably be used, but virtually all of the technical objections to this approach would be applicable in the Tazimina case. A carefully designed direct survey of willingness to pay would probably yield the most meaningful results, and could be conducted at reasonable cost. This is, however, a matter for the future. For the moment we can only extrapolate roughly from studies in Oregon and Washington (see Meyer 1982 for summaries of these) which yield values of about $50.00 per angler day. In view of the tremendous difference in the quality of the fishing experience on the Tazimina as compared to those in the studies referred to, a figure of $100 per angler day in that area seems reasonable. At least it can be defended as a better number than zero or the food value of the catch - the only apparent alternatives. In conjunction with our estimates of usage rates, this value per angler day yields a total annual value of $71,000. D. Subsistence Fishing Valuation of fish taken for subsistence purposes presents another set of difficult problems. As indicated in the section on user groups, the estimates of actual numbers of fish taken for subsistence use are rough and may have been understated in the past. Assuming, however, that they are the best available, how should they be valued? One alternative would be to use the commercial ex-vessel price, on the grounds that this represents the "opportunity cost" of the subsistence 21 catch - i.e., what could have been realized by sale rather than consumption. This approach seems inappropriate for the case at hand. Fish taken in the South Naknek commercial fishery by Nondalton residents cannot be transported home for use, and there is no available commercial market for locally- caught fish. A second possible technique would take the cost of substitute foods as a measure of the contribution of subsistence salmon. But what is an appropriate substitute? Canned salmon is available, but Nondalton people don't can the subsistence catch. Smoked salmon is available in metropolitan areas of the northwest, but it is not the same product as dried salmon and the markets involved are entirely different. What is really needed is a monetary value for some combination of substitutes that would leave the local population as well off as it would be with its normal subsistence catch. Such numbers simply cannot be estimated without a substantial research effort, and probably would be site-specific for each case. For want of the necessary information to do a better job, subsistence catches. from the Tazimina are therefore lumped in with the commercial catch and valued at ex-vessel prices. E. Discounting Procedure Like any other stream of future values, the present value of catches from the Tazimina must be calculated by discounting the money values in future years at an appropriate rate. In brief, a dollar one year from now is worth only the amount which would have to be invested, at the "going interest rate," to yield a dollar at the end of the year. 22 There is wide disagreement among economists as to the proper discount rate to use in converting future to present values. In this case, we have used the 10 percent rate employed in the Stone and Webster study of the Tazimina project. 23 VI. CALCULATION OF VALUE 1. Average run to Tazimina River 712,000 fish 2. Catch (= 45 percent of 712,000) 320,000 fish 3. Gross value of annual catch ($4.24 x 320,000) $1,358,496 4. Present value of perpetual yield at that level, discounted at 10 percent $13,584,960 5. Present value of annual recreational usage (710 angler days x $100, discounted at 10%) 710,000 Total P.V. $14,294,960 In summary, the value of the annual sockeye catch from the Tazimina, projected at an average run level (1976-1980) of 712,000 fish and valued at 1979-1981 average prices, would be approximately $1,360,000 plus $71,000 for recreational use. The present value of all future runs of like size, discounted at 10 percent, would be about $14,295,000. This is the total value at risk in any project that might have an adverse effect on sockeye production. With incremental changes in production costs of the Kvichak fishery at very low levels for even complete loss of Tazimina run (-4 percent of total system production), net economic values would probably run from 90-95 percent of the gross values above. It cannot be stressed too strongly that these are extremely conservative estimates of only those elements of value that can be expressed in dollar terms (albeit with considerable reservations). They do not take into account the heavy dependence of local population groups on salmon for their social, if not physical, existence, nor do they identify the particular groups that would be affected by the loss of all or part of the Tazimina River salmon runs. These questions are addressed in the following section. 25 VII. DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE AND TYPES OF USER GROUPS The values derived from the Tazimina River fishery resources are distributed among different human groups of different sizes which exhibit different social and cultural ties to the sare and which experience different benefits from their proportion of the value. The various subpopulations also differ in the degree to which alternative resources (or value from the resources) can be readily incorporated into their contemporary patterns of productive activities. Direct benefits from the Tazimina resources can be allocated among commerical, subsistence, and sport/recreational uses. Some user groups are linked to only one type of use while other user groups may combine several different uses of the resources. The most readily identifiable user groups include the residents of Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna, the commerical drift and set gillnet fishermen of the Naknek-Kvichak district of Bristol Bay, and the sport/recreational fly-in fishermen who utilize the Newhalen and Tazimina Rivers. The sections below will describe the types of uses made by each of these groups of the Tazimina River resources. A. Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna Village Residents Information in this section will deal primarily with Nondalton due to its proximity to the Tazimina site and the greater amount of information available concerning that village compared to the other two. Some comparative information for Newhalen and Iliamna is presented. The village of Nondalton lies on Six Mile Lake immediately below Lake Clark, almost directly across from the mouth of the Tazimina River. The village of Newhalen and Iliamna lie on the north shore of Lake Iliamna; the village of Newhalen is located at the mouth of the Newhalen River while ‘26 Iliamna is located several miles east. The 1980 preliminary U.S. census give the following populationfigures for these communities: Nondalton - 170, Newhalen - 87, and Iliamna - 94. These figures are probably slightly lower than what villages would accept as valid population figures. Ninety percent of Nondalton's residents are Tanaina Athabascans (Dena'ina). The village of Newhalen is predominantly Tup'ik Eskimo although there are a number of marriage ties with Nondalton. The community of Iliamna is composed of Dena'ina, and Yup'ik components as well as a sizable Euro- American component. The present village site of Nondalton has been occupied since about 1940. Archeological, ethnological, and historical evidence indicates that the Dena'ina have occupied the Lake Clark-Upper Mulchatna and Upper Kuskokwim areas since at least the latter half of the 18th century (Smith and Shields 1977, Van Stone and Townsend 1970). The Yup'ik penetration of the Lake Iliamna area appears to be dated to the early 19th century. Like other Alaskan rural villages, the economy of Nondalton is presently based on a combination of wage labor, commerical fishing and trapping, transfer payments, arid harvesting local fish and game resources for subsistence uses. Nondalton has few local wage labor opportunities and consequently subsistence production is of great significance to village residents. Compared to other Bristol Bay communities, Nondalton residents are significantly less involved in the commerical fishery due primarily to their distance from the major fishing areas. Nondalton residents can be conceived as a distinct, relatively integrated user group exhibiting a distinct pattern of Tazimina River fishery resources use. Their pattern of use involves all three of the types identified above (commercial, subsistence, recreational/sport) although they are combined in 27 a specific and distinct sociocultural context. In the past Nondalton residents’ participation in the Bristol Bay commerical fishery has exhibited a direct correlation to the size of the returning run. Twenty-five Bristol Bay limited entry permits were owned by Nondalton residents in 1980 of which 13 were set net and 12 were drift net (Langdon 1981). However, only three residents of Nondalton owned fishing boats in 1981 and these were all older boats in Seek condition (Behnke 1982: 16). Most of the other permit holders work in partnership arrangements with vessel owners from outside Nondalton (Behnke 1982: 18). Nearly all Nondalton drift fishermen fish out of South Naknek, fishing only the early July peak and then returning home to begin subsistence production in. mid-to-late-July. In 1980, 50% of surveyed Nondalton households reported at least one member who fished commercially while in 1981, 68% of surveyed households indicated that at least one member had participated in the commerical fishery. In 1980, Nondalton commerical fishing income averaged $8,442 per household (Behnke 1982: 19). This compares with an average of $17,133 average gross earnings for the nearby communities of Newhalen and Iliamna and $22,863 for all Bristol Bay Native fishermen (Langdon 1981). It should be noted that the Nondalton data apparently includes earnings of crewmen while the average for Newhalen, Iliamna, and all Bristol Bay Native fishermen refer only to earnings of permit holders. Although there is no data on the proportion of Nondalton's total cash income the commerical fishing income comprises, 14 respondents in Newhalen/Iliamna reported that commerical fishing income contributed 87.3% of their total annual cash income. The figure is likely to be somewhat lower for Nondalton resident fishermen. 28 Since commerical fishermen from all three communities fish overwhelmingly in the Naknek-Kvichak district, it is reasonable to assume that they derive, on average, the same proportion of their commerical catch from the Tazimina as do other Naknek-Kvichak fishermen. Based on the contribution of the Tazimina to the total Kvichak fishery, Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna fish- ermen likely derive roughly 4% of their commerical salmon fishing income from the Tazimina. The second major category of use of the Tazimina fishery resources by Nondalton residents is that termed "subsistence." As noted in the previous section, this term denoted several related value dimensions linked to the harvesting of wildlife. A major component of subsistence production is the human food value; closely related in the material realm are uses for dog food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and tools. For example, some Nondalton Dena'ina use moosehide as rawhide for snowshoe webbing and softened (tanned) caribou and moosehide for winter footwear. A second dimension of subsistence production is the social value of the activities. Social relations among nuclear family members, extended family members, and other village residents are created and reinforced through subsistence activities. Families establish fish camps as units as well as take boat trips for hunting and berrypicking. Women form partnerships in putting up fish, sharing boats, nets, and smokehouses while men form partnerships for trapping and hunting. A second important social dimension is the sharing of production among different households. In 1981, for example, four Nondalton households harvested 60% of the moose. Approximately 40% of the households in the village harvested no moose; however, all village households were able to consume moose meat due to the sharing networks which linked non-producing households to the successful producers. 29 Aspects of subsistence practices which are linked to the values and beliefs of the Dena'ina comprise a third component of subsistence termed cultural. There are several dimensions of the cultural. Subsistence products, especially moose, are crucial to the conduct of the religious mortuary ritual of the potlatch. The right of Alaskan Athabascans to take moose for purposes of funeral petioges at anytime during the year has been upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court as constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Among the Nondalton Dena'ina, celebrations which involve kinsmen from Newhalen, Iliamna, Pedro Bay, and other nearby communities are held in late December (termed Russian Christmas or "Slavi" locally) and again near breakup in the spring. The former is religious in nature and the latter secular. Fresh meat (moose or caribou) and dried fish are important food items to be presented to visiting guests at these times. Athabascans elsewhere in Alaska have important religious and cosmological beliefs concerning animal spirits which involve specific ritual practices (seasons, taboos, butchering patterns, etc.) designed to insure the continued supply and availability of wildlife to human users. Although there is no data on specific religious beliefs and practices of the contemporary Nondalton Dena'ina, it is clear that villagers continue to value highly total use of harvest wildlife and are critical of sport/recreational users who, in their view, waste edible innards, backs, bones, and skulls (Behnke 1982). These values and beliefs are shared and taught to young people through subsistence activities thus providing still another cultural Sieinesch to subsistence. In reviewing the subsistence catch data, the additional values and benefits associated with subsistence production by Nondalton Dena'ina should be kept in mind. It should also be noted that Behnke (1982) states that Dena'ina leaders informed him that figures in the past had been deliberately deflated 30 Table 6 Nondalton Subsistence Salmon Catches: 1963-1980 Year Total Catch 1963 7,400-25,000 1964 9,200-35,000 1965 NA 1966 45,800 1967 29,600 1968 33,700 1969 44,000 1970 42,900 19271 22,100 1972 24,100 1973 8,500 1974 29,509 1975 48,704 1976 20,480 1977 27,200 LOS 17,300 1979 14,700 1980 11,300 Average* 26,953 % Based on midpoint of ranges for 1963-64 Sources: Behnke 1978, ADFG 1977,78,79,80 31 Figure 1 PROPORTION OF NONDALTON SUBSISTENCE HARVEST, BY WEIGHT SALMON, MOOSE, CARIBOU, BEAVER AND FRESHWATER FISH 1973, 1980, 1981 eS Percentage of Harvests by Edible Weights ’ (11.58) 1973 1980 1981 32 out of fear that the Department of Fish and Game would halt their harvest if they knew how many fish the Nondalton Dena'ina were actually putting up. The subsistence harvest of sockeye by Nondalton residents from 1963-1980 is summarized in Table 6. A recent study by the Subsistence Division of ADF&G based on household surveys in Nondalton during three different years shows that salmon provides the overwhelming bulk of subsistence harvest of Nondalton residents at present. As Figure 1 displays, between 63% and 80% of subsistence production by weight has been from salmon in recent years. The portion of that production that is derived from the Tazimina varies with a number of factors including the size of runs to different streams, the timing of runs, and participation rates of Nondalton residents in the Bristol Bay commerical fishery. Approximately 25% of the production is estimated to come from the Tazimina during a poor year in Tazimina production (Behnke: Personal Communication). Another important piece of information revealed by Figure 1 is that a significant percentage of edible weight is derived from freshwater fish. This range from 2.6% to 5.0%. The freshwater species include grayling, lake and rainbow trout, whitefish, pike, Dolly Varden, suckers, char, and lingcod (Behnke 1982). Whitefish and pike appear to be the dominant species at present although inthe past, prior to the establishment of sports fishing lodges in the area, rainbow and lake trout were of greater importance (Behnke 1978: 83). From 67-75% of all freshwater species production is estimated to come from the near vicinity of Nondalton which would appear to indicate a high degree of contribution by the Tazimina to freshwater fish harvests. In the closing the discussion of subsistence production by Nondalton residents and its relationship to the Tazimina River, it should be noted 33 that the entire Tazimina drainage. is included within the main area of subsistence harvests for Nondalton residents (Behnke 1978). One other important nonfishery resource which could be potentially impacted by Tazimina power development is the beaver. As Figure 1 indicates, beaver comprised from 2.3 % to 3.4% of subsistence harvest by weight. They are a culturally valued delicacy and their furs provide supplementary cash income. Newhalen and Iliamna residents harvest their subsistence salmon from the Newhalen River. Although it is not possible to estimate, some portion of that catch derives from the Tazimina. B. Naknek-Kvichak District Commercial Fishermen It has been assumed that the vast majority of the Tazimina sockeye recruited to the commercial fishery are harvested in the Naknek-Kvichak distri¢t. The following analysis of the beneficiaries of the Naknek-Kvichak commercial salmon fishery is based on 1980 data. It should be recognized that significant variations can occur from one year to another in the statistics cited. Table 7 presents data on the peak number of gear units operating in the Naknek-Kvichak district in recent years. In 1980, approximately 1,084 units of drift gear, out of a possible 1,800 (roughly 60%) drift gillnet permits, fished in the Naknek-Kvichak district and approximately 280 of 900 (roughly 31%) set gillnet permits fished in that district. In 1980, 44% of the permanent of Bristol Bay, and the remaining 20% by other Alaskan residents (Langdon 1980). A survey conducted in 1980 by the Bristol Bay ey pasceyetee revealed that Bristol Bay Native drift fishermen pieadebientty”ta pe Nushagak and Togiak districts (Langdon 1981). Based on those figures, roughly 12% of Bristol Bay resident drift fishermen fished in the Naknek-Kvichak district; proportionately greater rates of 34 Table 7 Number of Drift and Set Net Units Operating in the Naknek-Kvichak District: 1978-1980 Year Drift Set Total 1978 778 182 960 19-79. 800 200+ 1,000+ 1980 1,084 280 1,364+ 35 participation by the other residency categories of fishermen would mean that the Naknek-Kvichak drift gillnet fleet was composed of 61% non-Alaskan fishermen and 27% other Alaskan fishermen in addition to the 12% Bristol Bay resident fishermen. Thus, approximately 661 nonresident units, 293 other Alaskan units and 130 Bristol Bay resident units participated in the 1980 Naknek-Kvichak drift gillnet fishery. A recent Sea Grant-UFA fishermen survey reported that Bristol Bay resident and nonresident drift units averaged 2.5 persons per unit while other Alaskan drift units average 2.7 persons. Assuming that crewmen were selected from the same residency cohort as the permit holder (a reasonable assumption based on family relationhip and friendship criteria), then there were 1,652 non- Alaskan residents, 325 Bristol Bay residents, and 791 other Alaskan residents employed in the harvest of Tazimina River sockeye in the Naknek-Kvichak district by drift gillnetting. Similar information on the preferred fishing districts for Bristol Bay resident set gillnet operators is unavailable. The set gillnet permit distribution by residency cohort was as follows for 1980: 17% non-Alaskan residents, 57% Bristol Bay residents, and 26% other Alaskan residents. Given the 280 reported set gillnet units in the Naknek-Kvichak district in 1980, 48 of those were operated by non-Alaskan residents, 160 by Bristol Bay ‘residents, and 73 by other Alaskan residents. The Sea Grant-UFA survey reported that non-Alaskan resident-operated set gillnet units used 3.6 people, and other Alaskan resident-operated units used 4.7 people. Again assuming that crewmen were drawn from the same residency cohort as the permit holder, 173 non-Alaskan residents, 528 Bristol Bay residents, and 343 other Alaskan residents were employed in the commerical harvest of Tazimina River sockeye in the Naknek-Kvichak district by set gillnetting. 36 Distribution of the total commercial value of sockeye between gear types for all Bristol Bay districts over the period 1959-1978 was 91% drift and 9% set. Cc. Fly-in Subsistence and Sport/Recreational Fishermen The Lake Iliamna-Lake Clark area has become an attractive location for Anchorage residents and other non-Alaskan residents (both out-of-state and foreign) in the past three years due primarily to the size of the sockeye runs. Perhaps the most attractive area for these fishermen is the Iliamna- Newhalen area due to the large landing strip at Iliamna and its close proximity to the Newhalen River. Wien Air Alaska provides daily jet service between Anchorage and Iliamna during the summer making for relatively easy access to these fishery resources. A significant increase has occurred in the subsistence harvest taken by fly-in fishermen in the past several years. Table 8 shows sharp increases in the number of permits issued to Iliamna in 1979 and again in 1980 and an extraordinary rise in the permits issued to Newhalen in 1980. The Bristol Bay Area Management Report for 1980 indicates that these unusual increases are largely due to fly-in fishermen from Anchorage (ADFG 1980: 36). There is a substantial sport/recreational fishery in the area which is primarily oriented towards freshwater species. As noted previously, there was a sports fishing lodge on the Tazimina River for a period, but it has now closed. There are no data on the level of sport/recreational fishing that can be directly attributed to the Tazimina River. 37 Table 8 Number of Subsistence Salmon Permits Issued By Village: 1976-1980 Year 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Nondalton Newhalen 30 NA 34 8 29 6 22 8 15 1 Iliamna 35 30 24 52 96 39 VIII. REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1976-1980. Bristol Bay Area Management Report. Dillingham, Alaska. Behnke, S. R. 1978. Resource use and subsistence in the vicinity of the proposed Lake Clark National Park, Alaska and additions to Katmai National Monument. Occasional paper No. 15. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Behnke, S. R. 1982. Wildlife utilization and the economy of Nondalton. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division. Dillingham, Alaska. Brown, G. M. 1982. Marine Recreation. In Economics of Ocean Resources: A research agenda, University of Washington Sea Grant Program, forthcoming, November 1982. Langdon, S. 1980. Transfer patterns in Alaskan limited entry fisheries. Final Rep. Limited Entry Study Group of the Alaska State Legislature. Juneau: Legislative Affairs Office, State of Alaska. Langdon, S. 1981. The 1980 season and Bristol Bay native fishermen: Performance and prospects. Bristol Bay Native Association, Dillingham, Alaska. Larson, D. 1980. 1979 fisherman's income survey - herring and salmon fisheries. Alaska Sea Grant Program Report 80-5. Meyer, P. A. 1982. Net economic values for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River system. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS F-NWR-3. June 1982. Poe, P. H. and 0. A. Mathisen. 1982. Tazimina River sockeye salmon studies — Evaluation of spawning ground survey data. Final Rep. (Contract No. 12023-006-20 Dames & Moore) FRI-UW-8201. 30pp. Smith, G. and H. Shields. 1977. Archeological survey of portions of the proposed Lake Clark National Park. Fairbanks: National Park Service. VanStone, J. W. and J. B. Townsend. 1970. Kijik; an historic Tanaina Indian settlement. Anthropological series of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 59.