HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA336COOK N T
REGia AL
UNIVER ITY OF I ASK
..CT C •
EN ANCEMENT
PLA I
TK
1425
.88
su~A23
130 no.336
I, Ronald 0. Skoog, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, formally give my approval to the Cook Inlet Regional Salmon
Enhancement Plan 1981-2000 prepared by the Cook Inlet Regional Planning
Team for the Cook Inlet area of Alaska per the provisions of Alaska
Statute 16.10.375.
~OJ411
Date
D ..:P\RT'It:"r 0 ..'"'ISII .\~D G;\,It:
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
Februa ry 19,1982
Sidney M.Logan,Chairman
Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
P.O.Box 3150
Soldotna,Alaska 99669
Dear Mr.Logan:
JA r s.HAMMONO,GOVERNOR
P.O.BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU,ALASKA 99802
PHONE:
(907)465-4100
.s l(,S
l.:b
This letter is to inform you,as chairman of the Cook Inlet Regional
Planning Team (CIRPT),of my formal approval of the The Final Draft
Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhancement Plan 1981-2000.
Since the submittal of the plan for my consideration,it has undergone
a process of review and comment by the Directors of Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G)divisions responsible for managing,enhancing
and protecting Alaska's fishery and its habitat.Previous to my review
you conducted public meetings of the plan and distributed copies to
provide opportunity for comment by ADF&G technical staff and the general
public,with emphasis on those associated with the fishery in user and
consumer capacities.
I am confident the CIRPT has been responsive to the comments and sugges-
tions resulting from the above-mentioned reviews.
Based on the efforts of the CIRPT in preparing the plan and comments I
have received on the quality of these efforts,I believe that a viable
and responsible document has been produced.
I offer my congratulations and appreciation to you and all members of
the team for cooperating with me and the Department in producing a
comprehensive salmon plan for the Cook Inlet area.
Si ncerely.
cc:Members,CIRPT
ADF&G Division Directors
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Infonnation ServIces
Anchorage,Alaska
1.3 US
,3L>
lK.,
J4~5
.'S~
A~3
flD-:320
N
vovvv
ooo
LO
LO
"M
M
COOK INLET
REGIONAL SALMON
ENHANCEMENT PLAN
1981 -2000
Prepared By:
COOK INLET
REGIONAL PLANNING
TEAM
SID LOGAN
Chairman
FLOYD BLOSSOM
IVAN EVERY
KEN FLOREY
PAUL KRASNOWSKI
ROBERT MOSS
RUSS REDICK
THOMAS WALKER
Team Planner
OCTOBER.1981
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
"T
The Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team received
.much support during its work on this plan,and that
support not only facilitated the effort but led directly
to a better end product.
Several individuals had served on the Regional
Planning Team in the past but were not members at
the time of publication of the Plan.The Team ac-
knowledges the time and thought given by Lottie
Edelman,Emil "Beaver"Nelson,and Paul Jones who
at various times represented the Cook Inlet Aquacul-
ture Association and Dennis Haanpaa from the
Department of Fish and Game.Additionally the alter-
nate delegate from the Association,Dave Vander-
brink,served as an active and frequent contributor to
the deliberations of the Team.
A number of people who were not officially a part
of the Team made consistent and important contribu-
tions to the development of the Plan.Outstanding
among those were Floyd Heimbuch,Tom Mears and
Shirley Aleckson from the aquaculture staff and Ken
Tarbox,Loren Flagg,Tom Schroeder,Nick Dudiak and
Larry Engel from the Soldotna,Homer and Palmer
offices of the Department of Fish and Game.Valuable
overall perspective on the plan development was
given by Jerry Madden,ADF&G Private Non-profit
Coordinator.
The Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team extends
its thanks and gratitude for these efforts.
GUIDE TO THE READER
It will be helpful to understand what each of the
chapters is intended to offer the reader so that the
review of the Plan may be most efficient from each
reader's perspective.
The Executive Summary presents selected high-
lights of the Plan.It addresses the broad perceptions
of the Regional Planning Team concerning the appro-
priate direction for salmon enhancement efforts and
the relationships that will be needed between the
participants in those efforts.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the Plan and a de-
scription of the process by which it was developed.It
shows the working relationships of the Regional Plan-
ning Team (RPT)and its responsibilities.Efforts to
involve the public in the development are set forth.
Chapter 2 gives the reader the background infor-
mation that will be necessary to understand and
assess the ideas set forth in later chapters.It de-
scribes both the natural and human environments of
the Cook Inlet area and includes descriptions of the
history and current status of the fishery by gear group
and by species of salmon.It also covers the eco-
nomics associated with the fishery.In all cases em-
phasis is given to those elements which have some
recognizable influence on the salmon fishery.
Chapter 3 focuses on the life histories of the five
species of salmon harvested in the Inlet and sets out
an historical perspective on the strength and trends of
the annual runs.It examines the data on the wild
stocks,explores the condition of supplemental stocks,
and describes the efforts of various groups to improve
the condition of the fishery.
Chapter 4 deals with the projected aspirations of
the various user groups and the total number of
salmon required to support a satisfactory harvest level
in the year 2000.It discusses the context iii'which
this target status was developed and presents the
qualifying assumptions that accompany the pro-
jection.
Chapter 5 examines the difference or "gap"
between the existing situation described in Chapter 3
and the target 2000 status set out in Chapter 4.In-
cluded in this discussion is analysis of the limitations
to filling the "gap",which range from lack of infor-
mation to lack of technology and/or immediate
funding.
Chapter 6 is the logical outgrowth of Chapters 3,
4,and 5 as it establishes the long-term goals of the
Plan and describes the short-term objectives that will
collectively lead to the attainment of those goals.It
presents a schedule which outlines species-by-species
the time framework within which these objectives,
and subsequently goals,will be achieved.
Chapter 7 in its discussions of strategies and pro-
jects is the ultimate refinement of the concept of
goals and objectives established in the prior chapter.
Among the strategies considered are enhancement,
harvest management,habitat protection,and
research.
The plan concludes with an Appendix that pro-
vides the pertinent technical data used in the develop-
ment of the Plan.
The first section of the Appendix is a glossary of
terms which are used in the Plan and which may not
be familiar to all.In addition some terms are used re e
peatedly and have very specific definitions,which
were developed by the Cook Inlet Regional Planning
Team (CIRPT).Finally,a number of organizations have
been discussed by reference to their initials,and in
each case the glossary contains those initials and the
full name of the organization.
Many sources of information were reviewed
during the preparation of the Plan.The second section
of the Appendix is a bibliography of not only those
sources which were specifically cited but also those
which were used in developing context and back-
ground.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
28
28
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
33
33
33
33
33
37
35
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
CIAA Relationships with
User Groups .
Fisheries Managernent .
Subsistence Fishery .
Regulations .
Catch Analysis .
Economic Assessment .
Sport Fishery .
Fishing Pressure .
Catch Analysis .
Economic Assessment .
Commercial Fishery .
Introduction .
Regulations .
Drift Gill Net Fishery .
Set Gill Net Fishery .
Seine Fishery .
Harvest Summary .
Economic Catch Analysis .
SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE PLAN .
STOCK STATUS
INTRODUCTION .
STATUS OF WILD STOCK .
Methods for Determining
Wild Stock Status .
Commercial Harvest
Reports .
Sport Fish Harvest
Reports .
Subsistence Harvest
Reports " , .
Escapement Monitoring .
Management Reports '"..
Stock Status Reports .
Historical Trends .
Sockeye Salmon .
Life History .
Historical Production .
Pink Salmon .
Life History .
Historical Production .
Chum Salmon .
Life History ....•...............
Historical Production .
King Salmon .
Life History .
Historical Production .
Coho Salmon .
Life History .
Historical Production .
Summary .
STATUS OF SUPPLEMENTAL
PRODUCTION .
Introduction .
Methods of Supplemental
Production .
Hatchery .
3.2.1.2
3.2.1.3
2.4.1.4
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
2.4.1.5
2.4.2
2.4.2.1
2.4.2.2
2.4.2.3
2.4.3
2.4.3.1
2.4.3.2
2.4.3.3
2.4.4
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.2
2.4.4.3
2.4.4.4
2.4.4.5
2.4.4.6
2.4.4.7
2.5
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.2.1
3.2.1.4
3.2.1.5
3.2.1.6
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
3.2.3.2
3.2.4
3.2.4.1
3.2.4.2
3.2.5
3.2.5.1
3.2.5.2
3.2.6
3.2.6.1
3.2.6.2
3.2.7
3.2.7.1
3.2.7.2
3.2.8
3.3
16
16
16
16
9
9
9
9
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
7
7
9
7
7
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
18
18
18
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
REGIONAL PROFILE
PROJECT LOCATION .
OVERVIEW OF THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT .
Cook Inlet .
Major Mountain Systems .
Surface Waters .
Climate .
Seismicity and Volcanism .
Geology and Soils .
Wildlife .
Vegetation : .
Fish .
Salmon .
Non-Salmon Anadromous and
Freshwater Species .
Non-Salmon Marine Species .
Shellfish .
Summary .
OVERVIEW OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT .
Land Status and Use .
Land Status .
Land Use .
Population Characteristics .
Description of Economic
Sectors ,.
Basic Sector .
Support Sector .
Employment and Labor Force .
Economic Outlook for
the Region .
Summary .
SALMON FISHERY .
Overview .
Historical Perspective .
The Salmon .
User Group Definition
and Development .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO
THE PLAN
INTRODUCTION .
Legislative Background .
Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association .
Geographic Area of Interest .
The Regional Planning Team .
APPROACH TO THE PLAN .
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .
APPROVAL AND AUTHORITY
OF THE PLAN .
EFFECTIVE LIFE OF THE PLAN .
DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES
AND PROJECTS .
ASSUMPTIONS -:.
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.2.9.3
2.2.9.4
2.2.10
2.3
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
2.3.1
2.3.1.1
2.3.1.2
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.6
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.1.1
2.4.1.2
2.4.1.3
2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2.l
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.9.1
2.2.9.2
3.3.2.2 Habitat Modification -Stream 6.2.2.2 Goals Scheduled for
Clearance ....................41 1991-2000 .................56
3.3.2.3 Habitat Modification -Fish 6.2.2.3 Unscheduled Goals
Pass ........................41 (1981-2000)................56
3.3.2.4 Habitat Modification -6.2.3 Chum Salmon ....................56
Fertilization ...............•..41 6.2.3.1 Goals Scheduled for
3.3.2.5 Habitat Modification -1981-1990 .................56
Spawning Channels ..........41 6.2.3.2 Goals Scheduled for
3.3.2.6 Habitat Modification -1991-2000 .................56
Water Flow Control...........41 6.2.3.3 Unscheduled Goals
3.3.2.7 Habitat Modification -(1981-2000)................56
Predator/Competitor 6.2.4 Coho Salmon ....................56
Control ....................41 6.2.4.1 Goals Scheduled for
3.3.2.8 Stocking -Streams .............42 1981-1990 .................56
3.3.2.9 Stocking -Lakes ...............42 6.2.4.2 Goals Scheduled for
3.3.3 Supplemental Production 1991-2000 .................57
Programs ......................42 6.2.4.3 Unscheduled Goals
3.3.3.1 Summary of Supplemental (1981-2000)................57
Production ...................42 6.2.5 King Salmon .....................57
3.4 SUMMARY OF SALMON 6.2.5.1 Goals Scheduled for
PRODUCTION STATUS ...........43 1981-1990 .................57
4.0 TARGET 2000 STATUS 6.2.5.2 Goals Scheduled for
4.1 CONTEXT OF TARGET 2000 1991-2000 .................57
STATUS .........................45 6.3 RESEARCH/DATA-GATHERING
4.2 QUALIFICATION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .........57
TARGET 2000 STATUS ..........45 6.4 POLICY/MANAGEMENT GOALS
4.3 TARGET 2000 STATUS ............46 AND OBJECTIVES ................58
5.0 GAP ANALYSIS 7.0 STRATEGIES AND5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................47 PROJECTS5.1.1 Definition of Gap .................47 7.1 INTRODUCTION ....................595.1.2 Perspective on Gap ...............47 7.2 RESEARCH AND EVALUATION5.1.3 Structure of the Analysis ..........47 STRATEGy ......................595.2 THE PRESENT CONDITION ..........48
5.2.1 Time Frame ......................48 7.2.1 Strategy and Tactics ..............59
5.2.2 Data ............................48 7.2.2 Projects .........................61
5.3 PROJECTED 1990 STATUS .........49 7.2.2.1 Spawning Ground Survey .......61
5.3.1 Identified Activities ...............49 7.2.2.2 Upper Cook Inlet
5.3.2 Character of the 1990 Status .....49 Run Modeling ................61
5.4 PROJECTED 2000 STATUS .........50 7.2.2.3 Evaluation of Hatchery Stocked
5.4.1 Identified Activities ...............50 Fry Survival in
5.4.2 Character of the 2000 Status .....50 Kenai Lake ...................61
5.5 RESIDUAL GAP ....................51 7.2.2.4 Hidden Lake Assessment........61
5.6 REPRESENT A TIVE IMPLICATIONS 7.2.2.5 Quartz Creek Broodstock
OF GAP CLOSURE ................52 Evaluation ...................61
7.2.2.6 Kasilof Hatchery Evaluation ..'...61
6.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7.2.2.7 Crooked Creek King Salmon
6.1 INTRODUCTION ....................53 Enhancement ................61
6.1.1 Production/Harvest Goals .........53 7.2.2.8 Homer Area Salmon Smolt
6.1.2 Research/Data-Gathering Stocking Program ............61
Goals ..........................53 7.2.2.9 Tutka Hatchery Evaluation.,....61
6.1.3 Policy/Management Goals .........53 7.2.2.10 Halibut Cove Lagoon Saltwater
6.1.4 Relationship of Goals to the Rearing Evaluation ............62
Target 2000 Status ............53 7.2.2.11 Evaluation of Responses to
6.2 PRODUCTION/HARVEST GOALS Sockeye Fry Stocking in a
AND OBJECTIVES ................53 Lake with Naturally
6.2.1 Sockeye Salmon ..................55 Reproducing Sockeye
6.2.1.1 Goals Scheduled for Stocks -Tustumena Lake .....62
1981-1990 .................55 7.2.2.12 Marking Effectiveness on
6.2.1.2 Goals Scheduled for Sockeye Salmon .............62
1991-2000 .................55 7.2.2.13 Deshka River Coho
6.2.1.3 Unscheduled Goals Salmon Study ................62
(1981-2000)...............~;55 7.2.2.14 Anchor River King Salmon
6.2.2 Pink Salmon .....................55 Study ..........','...........63
6.2.2.1 Goals Scheduled for 7.2.2.15 Sixmile Creek King Salmon and
1981-1990 .................55 Coho Salmon Study ..........63
7.2.2.16 Kenai River Spawning and 7.4.2 Projects .........'"....'.'.......67
Rearing Study ................63 7.4.2.1 Little Susitna River Coho Salmon
7.2.2.17 Genetics of Russian River Enhancement ................67
Sockeye Salmon .............63 7.4.2.2 Little Susitna River King Salmon
7.2.2.18 Susitna River Radio Tagging Enhancement ................67
Study .......................63 7.4.2.3 Early Russian River Sockeye
7.2.2.19 Preliminary Site Investigations Salmon Enhancement.........67
For Potential Hatchery,7.4.2.4 Willow Creek Coho and King
Lake Stocking,and Habitat Salmon Enhancement."......70
Improvement Sites ...........63 7.4.2.5 Caswell Creek Coho Salmon
7.2.3 Summary ........................63 Enhancement ................70
7.3 REHABILITATION/ENHANCEMENT 7.4.2.6 Resurrection Bay Coho Salmon
STRATEGy ......................63 Enhancement ................70
7.3.1 Strategy and Tactics ..............63 7.4.2.7 Early Kenai River King Salmon
7.3.2 Projects .........................64 Enhancement ................70
7.3.2.1 Kasilof Hatchery ...............64 7.4.2.8 Knik Arm Tributaries Coho
7.3.2.2 Trail Lakes Hatchery ............64 Salmon Enhancement .........70
7.3.2.3 Big Lake Hatchery ..............64 7.4.2.9 Late Kenai River Coho Salmon
7.3.2.4 Anchorage Hatchery Complex Enhancement ................70
(Ft.Richardson and 7.4.3 Summary ........................70
Elmendorf)...................64 7.5 HARVEST MANAGEMENT
7.3.2.5 Tutka Hatchery ................64 STRATEGy ......................70
7.3.2.6 Eklutna Hatchery ...............64 7.5.1 Strategy and Tactics ..............70
7.3.2.7 English Bay Lakes 7.5.2 Projects ................".......71
Hatchery ....................64 7.5.2.1 Escapement Monitoring .........71
7.3.2.8 Paint River System .............64 7.5.2.2 In-season Effort and Catch
7.3.2.9 Scurvy Creek ..................66 Monitoring ...................71
7.3.2.10 Big River Lakes .................66 7.5.2.3 Upper Cook Inlet Central District
7.3.2.11 Ptarmigan Lake .................66 Test Fishing .................71
7.3.2.12 Chenik Lake....................66 7.5.2.4 Upper Cook Inlet Stock
7.3.2.13 Delight and Desire Lakes ........66 Separation ...................71
7.3.2.14 Crescent River .................66 7.5.2.5 Off-shore Test Fishing ..........71
7.3.2.15 Larson Lake ....................66 7.5.2.6 Humpy Creek Weir ......".....71
7.3.2.16 Byers Lake .....................66 7.5.2.7 Kachemak Bay Salmon and
7.3.2.17 Shell Lake .....................66 Shellfish Subsistence Catch
7.3.2.18 Bear Lake ......................66 Monitoring ...................71
7.3.2.19 Finger,Delyndia and 7.5.2.8 English Bay-Port Graham
Butterfly Lakes ...............66 Subsistence Weir and
7.3.2.20 Developing Projects ............67 Monitoring ........".........71
7.3.2.21 Suspected Projects .............67 7.5.3 Summary ........................72
7.3.3 Summary ........................67 7.6 HABITAT PROTECTION
STRATEGY ......................72
7.4 DISTRIBUTION/ACCESS 7.6.1 Strategies and Tactics ............72
STRATEGy ......................67 7.6.2 Programs ........................72
7.4.1 Strategy and Tactics ..............67 7.7 SUMMARy ........................72
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A -Planning Team Interactions ".
B -Cook Inlet Watershed .
C -Cook Inlet .
D -Mountain Ranges and Volcanoes .
E -Surface Waters .
F -Major Climate Zones .
G -Selected Climate Data .
H -Major Forests .
I -Special Status Land Acreage .
J -Major Park Land .
K -Major Development Projects .
L -Population .
M -Population Distribution .
1\1 -Major Salmon Run Timing .
a -Fishing Districts .
P -Sport Fishing Effort .
Q -Estimated Sport Fish Catch .
R -Commercial Gear Areas .
S -Record Commercial Catches .
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 -Glossary
Appendix 2 -Literature Cited/Bibliography
Appendix 3 -Public Participation Program
Appendix 4 -Commercial Catch Data
Appendix 5 -Sport Fish Survey
Appendix 6 -Data/Calculations Related to
Chapters 5 and 6
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
20
21
22
22
23
27
29
30
30
32
34
T -Ex-vessel Prices .
U -Historic Catch Perspectives .
V -Gap Analysis .
W(1)-Gap Analysis-Present .
W(2)-Gap Analysis-Present .
X -Harvest Composition-Present .
Y(1)-Gap Analysis-1990 .
Y(2)-Gap Analysis-1990 .
Z -Projected Harvest Composition-1990 .
AA(1 )-Gap Analysis-2000 .
AA(2)-Gap Analysis-2000 .
BB - .Projected Harvest Composition-2000 .
CC(1 I-Gap Analysis-Residual Gap .
CC(2)-Gap Analysis-Residual Gap .
DD -Project Production Summary .
EE -Strategy/Tactic/Project
Relationship .
FF -Quantifiable Projects .
GG -Developing Projects .
HH -Suspected Projects .
35
40
47
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
54
60
65
68
69
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team (CIRPT)
made up of three fishermen from the Cook Inlet Aqua-
culture Association (CIAA)and three representatives
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
met regularly over a two-year period to develop this
twenty-year plan for salmon enhancement in Cook
Inlet.The aquaculture association representing subsis-
tence,sport and commercial fishe'rmen,the Mata-
nuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs,the
Municipality of Anchorage,fish processors,Cook Inlet
Region,Inc.(the regional native association),the
University of Alaska,and selected cities throughout
the drainage area spoke for the user groups.The in-
terests and positions of resource management were
introduced by representatives from the Commercial
Fish Division,the Sport Fish Division,and the
Fisheries Rehabilitation,Enhancement,and Develop-
ment Division.
The Plan attempts to capture the complexity of
Cook Inlet and the diyersity of conditions that exist
within its 50,000 square mile drainage area.This re-
gion by general consensus contains the most intricate
mixing of physical and social factors related to salmon
resources of any area in the State for which this type
of plan is being prepared.Examples of this complexity
include the mixed stock nature of the fishery,the
widespread persistence of seismic activity,and the
presence of over one-half of the total State popu-
lation.
With full recognition of the inherent "risks"the
Regional Planning Team decided to take a basically
optimistic approach to the Plan.Much is not known
about the salmon resource in the Inlet,and many of
the projects which have been identified have not been
developed to the point that there is certainty that they
can be realized.Nevertheless,the underlying tone of
the Plan is that improvement is possible.The com-
mitment of the Plan is for all involved to extend their
maximum efforts toward that improvement.
The most promise for enhancement of the salmon
resource of Cook Inlet rests in the coordinated and
cooperative efforts of the Department of Fish and
Game and other agencies and associations interested
in salmon,particularly the Cook Inlet Aquaculture As-
sociation.Not only do the fishermen have a desire to
participate in enhancement of the resource,but it is
essential that there be mutual understanding between
the user groups and the resource managers.
During the evolution of the Plan in the work of
the Regional Planning Team several broad items
emerged as the focal points for the work to be
planned for the next twenty years.
•Enhancement of the salmon resource in any sig-
nificant and lasting fashion will depend upon a careful
balance of management for the wild stocks and the
orderly introduction of supplemental production.
•Conditions in the Inlet are sufficiently diverse
that any application of a supplemental production
technique will have to be assessed on a site-by-site
basis.
1
•Concentrated research efforts are necessary to
build the type of information base that will support an
increased salmon resource base and allow appropriate
and effective maoagement of it.
•Sustained long-term support of adequate staf-
fing and project budgets on the part of the State and
the fishermen will be required to realize the ambitious
goals set out in the Plan.
It became necessary in the planning process to
establish some target towards which the efforts of
the Plan would be directed.There is no clear definition
of the carrying capacity of the Inlet.Additionally,to
all but the managers,the most meaningful number is
the one that describes the harvest goal for the year
2000.After review of historic and current trends and
levels of harvest a target of 12.000 million salmon of
all species available to harvest in the year 2000 was
adopted.This mark,which is about 50 percent higher
than the best total harvest of salmon ever recorded in
the Inlet,is both high enough to necessitate a more
thorough understanding of the salmon and of the Inlet
and modest enough to be within reach,if all identified
projects proved both feasible and successful.
There are two major components to the planned
increases in the number of salmon,those additional
salmon that can be achieved through management of
the natural stocks and those salmon that will arise
from supplemental production techniques.The Com-
mercial Fish Division projected that through manage-
ment the harvest from wild stocks could be brought
to a level of 6.030 million in the even years and
5.030 million in the odd years by 2000.
Through a number of projects designed to supple-
ment the salmon resource the Regional Planning Team
was able to envision a total of 4.061 million being
added to the annual harvest by 2000.The table on
page 3 identifies those projects and their possible
contributions.
Combining the projected increases in natural
stocks with the potential supplemental production
that has been identified to this point,it is possible to
project a total harvest of 10.091 million in the even
years and 9.091 million in the odd years by 2000.
It is obvious that there will have to be a concomi-
tant escapement,if this size harvest is to be achieved
and maintained.The following tables show the projec-
tions up through the year 2000 and compare them to
the target 12.000 million harvest status.It is
apparent that there is a residual gap of between
1.909 and 2.909 million harvestable fish which can-
not be accounted for by any identified projects.
There are,however,a number of projects which
have been suggested but which are not sufficiently
developed to attach any specific potential production
to them at this time.It is to these projects and those
which will emerge during the twenty years that the
Regional Planning Team will look to eliminate as much
of the residual gap as possible.
PROJECTED HARVEST COMPOSITION -2000
Even Years Odd Years
Sockeye 3,163,000 3,163,000
Pink 4,235,000 3,235,000
Chum 1,906,000 1,906,000
Coho 695,000 695,000
King 92,000 92,000
10,091,000 9,091,000
PROJECT ANALYSIS
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
EVEN YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 4,078,000 6,892,000 10,091,000 1,909,000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1.770,000 2,984,000 4,113,000 955,000 5,068,000FISH
RUN 5,848,000 9,876,000 14,204,000 2,864,000 17,068,000STRENGTH
PROJECT ANALYSIS
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
ODD YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 3,810,000 6,092,000 9,091,000 2,909,000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,720,000 2,584,000 3,613,000 1,455,000 5,068,000FISH
RUN 5,530,000 8,676,000 4,364,000 17,068,000STRENGTH12,704,000
•
The role of research projects in the process of de-
veloping this stronger resource base cannot be over-
looked.The ultimate success in achieving a greater
number of salmon and the ability to maintain that
higher level once it is achieved will depend in large
part on the ability to manage the resource and the
harvest effectively.That ability will,in turn,come
only from pronounced improvement of the data base
relating to such diverse elements as run timing and
routes,identification of productive habitat and mea-
surement of its productivity,and identification of the
various salmon stocks in the Inlet.
Although there have been some fluctuations,the
general trend of ex-vessel prices paid for commercial
salmon has been upward through the last decade.The
number of processors in the Inlet has increased
markedly during the same period as has the participa-
tion in the sport fishery.Each of these inGleases is
accompanied by secondary and tertiary economic ac-
tivity.The projected increased proportion of supple-
mental stock in the catch will lower the present
benefit/cost ratio in the salmon fishery.However,the
2
Team felt that there is sufficient room for growth to
make expectation of individual and regional economic
gain as a result of the work planned here well within
the bounds of reason.The Team will undertake a
more particular analysis of the economics of both spe-
cific projects and the overall program in its Phase /I
planning.
The Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team recog-
nizes that anyone of many different elements might
alter the feasibility of what is proposed in the Plan in
either a positive or negative way.However,it also un-
derstands that a frame of reference is necessary,if
the work is to be orderly and systematic and progress
is to be measured.The Plan has the specificity to
make immediate action possible and the flexibility to
adjust to changing circumstances.Additionally,as it
reviews proposed projects for salmon enhancement it
will assess them in the light of the goals and objec-
tives of the Plan.The Regional Planning Team is com-
mitted to maintaining the usefulness and timeliness of
the Plan through a formal review and revision in
1985, 1990,1995,and 2000.
QUANTIFIED PROJECTS
PROJECT SOCKEYE PINK CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
KASILOF HATCHERY 120,000 120,000 '
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.1 160,000 160,000
TRAIL LAKES HATCHERY 182,000 61,000 12,000 255,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.2 243,000 92,000 18,000 353,000
BIG LAKE HATCHERY 97,000 53,000 150,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.3 130,000 80,000 210,000
ANCHORAGE HATCHERY 133,000 50,000 183,000
COMPLEX
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.4 200,000 75,000 275,000
TUTKA HATCHERY 342,000 190,000 532,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.5 360,000 200,000 560,000
EKLUTNA HATCHERY 205,000 205,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.6 308,000 308,000
ENGLISH BAY LAKES 80,000 600,000 74,000 754,000HATCHERY
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.7 100,000 750,000 92,000 942,000
PAINT RIVER 74,000 600,000 400,000 1,074,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.8 100,000 900,000 600,000 1,600,000
SCURVY CREEK 160,000 4,000 164,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.9 240,000 6,000 246,000
BIG RIVER LAKES 33,OOU 33,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.10 44,000 44,000
PT ARMIGAN LAKE 14,000 14,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.11 19,000 19,000
CHENIK LAKE 71,000 71,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.12 95,000 95,000
DELIGHT AND DESIRE 96,000 96,000
LAKES 129,000 129,000SEESECTION7.3.2.13
CRESCENT RIVER 127,000 127,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.14 170,000 170,000
LARSON LAKE 48,000 48,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.15 64,000 64,000
BYERS LAKE 24,000 24,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.16 32,000 32,000
SHELL LAKE 60,000 60,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.17 80,000 80,000
BEAR LAKE 7,000 7,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.18 10,000 10,000
FINGER,DEL YNDIA,8,000 8,000
AND BUTTERFLY LAKES 12,000 12,000SEESECTION7.3.2.19
OTH ERS-U NS PECI FlED 37,000 33,000 33,000 13,000 136,000
----
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.20 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000
HARVEST 1,063,000 1,735,000 906,000 295,000 62,000 4,061,000
TOTAL RUN 1,416,000 2,300,000 1,256,000 444,000 93,000 5,509,000
3
THE PLAN
CHAPTER 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION TO
THE PLAN
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Plan had certain prerequIsites.There had to
be a history of legislative mandates that supported the
importance of the salmon fishery and the active inter-
est of the State in the perpetuation and enhancement
of that fishery.It was essential that the fishermen or-
ganize into a group with a clearly defined geographical
area of influence and interest as a working partner
with the State.Finally,it was necessary for these two
major groups to jointly form a planning team with
some general guidelines for the accomplishment of
the planning process.
1.1.1 Legislative Background
The history of the salmon as a valuable,harvest-
able,and renewable resource dates back into the last
century;and it was officially recognized when Alas-
kan statehood was achieved in 1 959.The Constitu-
tion (Article VIII,Section 5)authorized the legislature
to "Provide for facilities,improvements and services
...to assure further utilization and development of
the fisheries."The formation of the Department of
Fish and Game with its Sport and Commercial Fish Di-
visions was further evidence of this intent.
A further refinement of this concept came in
1971 when the legislature passed Chapter 113 SLA
1971 creating the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (F.R.E.D.).A portion
of the responsibility of this new division of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)was to "de-
velop and continually maintain a comprehensive,
coordinated long-range plan for the orderly present
and long-range rehabilitation ...of all aspects of the
state's fishery."
In 1976 in a committee substitute for Senate Bill
No.688 the Commissioner of Fish and Game was
authorized to "...designate regions of the state for
the purpose of enhancing salmon production and shall
develop and amend as necessary a comprehensive
salmon enhancement plan for each region for both
public and private nonprofit hatchery systems.Com-
prehensive salmon enhancement plans shall be de-
veloped in cooperation with appropriate qualified
regional associations formed under sec.380 of this
chapter."
Subsequently in 1977 in committee substitute for
House Bill 264 the same section (AS 16.10.375)
was repealed and re-enacted so that "Subject to plan
approval by the commissioner,comprehensive salmon
plans shall be developed by regional planning teams
consisting of department personnel and representa-
tives of the appropriate qualified regional associations
formed under sec.380 of this chapter."
5
1.1.2 Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Through a series of fishermen initiated public
meetings that started early in 1976,there was dis-
cussion of and ultimately the formation of the Cook
Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA).Formed under
the Non-Profit Hatchery Act the Association was to
have a membership that consisted of all recognized
commercial fishermen's organizations and other user
groups as defined in AS 16.10 (3).The corporation is
administered by a Board of Directors made up of rep-
resentatives of the following groups.
•City of Seward
•Commercial Fishermen of Cook's Inlet
•Cook Inlet Fishermen's Association
•Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund
•Cook Inlet Region,Inc.
•Izaak Walton League
•Kachemak City
•Kenai Peninsula Borough
•Municipality of Anchorage
•Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's
Cooperative Association
•Matanuska-Susitna Borough
•Ninilchik Village Council
•North Pacific Fisheries Association
•University of Alaska
•Matanuska Valley Sportsmen
•fish processors
1.1 .3 Geographic Area of Interest
While the characteristics of Cook Inlet will be dis-
cussed in much greater detail in the following
chapters,certain features of its location and charac-
teristics need to be mentioned to set an appropriate
context for review of the Plan.The diversity which
makes the Inlet physically attractive and biologically
productive also makes it a very complex area for
which to plan.
Cook Inlet is the major marine intrusion into the
southcentral coast of Alaska.It extends about 250
miles north and east between the Aleutian Range and
the Kenai Peninsula and is as much as 100 miles wide
in its lower reaches.The drainage area feeding the
Inlet is over 38,000 square miles and reaches as far
north as Mt.McKinley and east almost as far as Glen-(
nallen.It should be noted that for purposes of fisher-0
ies management the Cook Inlet area includes the
coast of the Gulf of Alaska as far east as Cape Fair-
field.
Both in terms of the impact of development on
fish habitat and the accessibility of the fishery to large
numbers of people,population of the area becomes a
significant factor.Over 50 percent of the total state
population lives within the drainage area of Cook
Inlet.Along the eastern side of the Inlet,highways
make the northernmost portion of the Inlet near
Palmer only about five hours by car from the south-
ernmost community of Homer.
1.1.4 The Regional Planning Team
The Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team is made
up of six voting members,three representing the
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association and three repre-
senting the State of Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.In the case of the latter three there is one rep-
resentative each from F.R.E.D.Division,Commercial
Fish Division,and Sport Fish Division.In addition the
non-voting position of chairman is currently held by a
representative of ADF&G (Exhibit A).
Members were appointed to this team from the
CIAA shortly after the official formation of the Associ-
ation and have been active in the planning process
since 1977.
In 1979 additional support was sought for the
team's activities,and a consultant was retained to aid
in putting the Plan together.Later that consulting
function was supplanted by a planner attached to the
team itself.
The team met on a reasonably regular basis,
which in the latter stages of the effort was approxi-
mately monthly.These team meetings were regularly
attended by additional representatives of involved
state and federal agencies and staff and members of
the CIAA.Additionally the CIAA RPT members inter-
acted with the CIAA Board of Directors at the monthly
meetings of the Board.
It should be noted that there can and will be overlap
between the end of Phase I and the initiation of Phase
II.The formal publication of this document concludes
Phase I.
The approach to Phase I included review of the
existing information about the salmon fishery in Cook
Inlet.That information was contained in historical ac-
counts and records and in the present and ongoing
data development.The synthesis and analysis of
those data were conducted to establish the status of
the fishery.During this process a parallel field effort
was underway to survey and log the existing and po-
tential salmon habitat within the drainage of the Inlet.
Agreement was reached on the status of the fish-
ery,the demands that would be placed on the
resource during the life of the Plan,and the data gaps
it would be necessary to fill to make.periodic refine-
ments of the Plan.
Finally a specific program was outlined to identify
the sequence and significance of each project and to
suggest the resources necessary to accomplish the
project.In addition the potential benefits to be real-
ized from the various projects were derived.
'u
PLANNING TEAM INTERACTIONS EXHIBIT-A
CIAA Board ADF&G
of .---Region/Headquarters
Directors Staffs
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
CIAA CIAA ADF&G ADF&G 0
Staff 000000 RPT RPT POOOOOC Area 0
Members Members Staff 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 I 0
0 0
0 n
CIRPT ------------~
COOK 00000000000 F.R.E.D.
Planner INLET Planner
REGIONAL
PLANNING
I [0000000000'TEAM 00000000000
Public Federal
Agencies
Plan content approval responsibility =
Plan preparation responsibility =-------
Resource information and review responsibility =000000
1.2 APPROACH TO THE PLAN
The Plan recognizes the need for long-range plan-
ning as well as the desire for concrete accomplish-
ments in the short-term.Thus,the planning process
has two phases;Phase I which is the creatioQ of the
long-range plan,and Phase II which is composed of a
number of specific projects consistent with the Plan.
Phase I sets a framework in which Phase II projects of
varying natures and dimensions can be implemented.
6
1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Strong public participation in this planning pro-
cess is implicit in the str,~cture of the planning team.
In a real sense the interest of the public is represented
by the State and,in particular,the Department of Fish
and Game.It is certainly one of the ways in which
perceptions and opinions of the individual citizen can
find their way into this type of planning.
The CIAA Board represents user group organiza-
tions and through these organizations the membership
of each.Throughout the development of the Plan the
CIAA Board received briefings and progress reports at
its regular monthly meetings.During these same
meetings Board perspectives and approvals were
sought at critical planning stages.
The CIRPT representatives from the ADF&G and
the CIAA also provided a personal level of public input
in that in addition to representing their various organi-
zations they are,as individuals,members of an in-
terested public.
The CIRPT meetings were regularly attended by
representatives of other state agencies as well as con-
cerned federal agencies and individual citizens.
During the 53 day period in which the draft Plan
was in wide circulation for review and comment,two
public meetings were held.One meeting was held in
Anchorage (August 20)to reach the inhabitants of
the northern portion of the drainage area,and the
other meeting was held in the Kenai-Soldotna area
(August 19)to service the interested parties living on
the Kenai Peninsula.Prior to these meetings copies of
the document were placed with each Fish and Game
Advisory Board in the area,all pertinent libraries,all
pertinent offices of ADF&G and CIAA,all members of
the Board of Directors of the CIAA,and selected or-
ganizations recognized by the RPT as having a special
interest in the Plan (Appendix 3).Both the meetings
and the availability of the documents for review were
widely advertised.
1.4 APPROVAL AND AUTHORITY
OF THE PLAN
It is clear that the responsibility for and authority
to develop the Plan is vested by the Comissioner of
Fish and Game in the RPT directly and,therefore,in
the Department of Fish and Game and the C1AA in-
directly.
When the RPT completed the draft document to
its satisfaction,the Plan was widely circulated for re-
'view and comment.With due note taken of the
comments which were received,the revised draft was
forwarded to the Commissioner for review and ap-
proval.It was not until the document had received the
approval of the Commissioner that the Plan was
printed in final form and distributed.
The final Plan was then trahssetted to the legis-
lature by the Commissioner as the response to his
charge to develop such regional plans,and the Plan
became the official guideline for all salmon enhance-
ment efforts in Cook Inlet.
1.5 EFFECTIVE LIFE OF THE PLAN
To develop a meaningful plan it is necessary to
identify a period of time that serves as a framework
within which specific targets can be set.The general
guidelines for this planning effort indicate the Plan
should address a period of from 1 8 to 22 years.The
CIRPT selected a period of twenty years covering the
last two decades of this century,1981 through
2000.
It is possible within this time framework to (1)
complete a single action,(2)to complete a series of
7
dependent actions,and/or (3)to initiate an action
which may not be complete before the termination of
the twenty-year period.
It should be emphasized that the Plan is a living
document which is expected to undergo modifications
during its "life span".These adjustments cannot be
unilateral,but rather must arise from the same organ-
ized and cooperative effort"that created this
document.Therefore,the Plan is the initial effort in a
general planning approach which will continue in-
definitely.
1 .6 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES
AND PROJECTS
Because of the nature of the existing data on the
fisheries of Cook Inlet,it is necessary to develop two
types of strategies for the Plan.The first strategy
must cover the means of implementing projects which
have already been identified as components of goal
achievement.The second strategy must account for a
three-step process whereby recognized data deficien-
cies can be filled;new data can be analyzed to deter-
mine what actions are warranted;and,finally,a
means of implementation for those actions can be
identified.
Additionally there must be a mechanism for
regular evaluation of the progress of the Plan and de-
termination of its consistency with changing condi-
tions and new information.This evaluation compo-
nent must also have the capacity to assess completed
projects to determine their actual performance com-
pared to earlier projections.
The projects related to these strategies take
several forms.Specific projects known to be needed
and approved include such efforts as the opening of
Scurvy Creek through the use of a fish pass and the
transplanting of stock into the Paint River.Projects
designed to provide additional information for decision
making are represented by studies now unaerway at
Packers Creek to ascertain the size and timing of the
spawning migration and habitat surveys to identify
sites where additional work might be productive.The
search for additional information about escapement
on various streams is representative of the type of
project designed to refine the perception of goals;im-
prove concepts of management;and maximize the
size,and therefore harvest potential,of this renew-
able resource.
1.7 ASSUMPTIONS
Certain assumptions have governed the develop-
ment of the Plan and are essential to the accurate
understanding of its contents.
•The Plan makes use of the best data available
and the most accepted interpretation of that infor-
mation.
•The Plan does not purport to present the de-
finitive understanding of the physical/biological
interactions of the Cook Inlet system.In fact it recog-
nizes the necessity of developing this understanding
and seeks to initiate the orderly progress to that end.
•The Plan assumes a regular,if not constant,re-
assessment of information and requirements and the
subsequent modification of Plan elements.
•The Plan assumes the continuation of close
cooperation between the user groups and the State
toward the end of providing the maximal sustainable
harvest of salmon resources.
•The Plan assumes a sustained annual harvest of
salmon within Cook Inlet greater than that experi-
enced in the last two decades is possible,if appro-
8
priate effort,technology,and management are
brought to bear toward that end.
With the context of the development of the Plan
thus established Chapter 2 will explore the conditions
which prevail in the Inlet as they relate to the present
condition of the salmon resources and the potential of
those resources.
-
CHAPTER 2
2.0
REGIONAL PROFILE
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Cook Inlet and its watershed are at the heart of
the area known as south central Alaska.They form a
rough rectangle that averages approximately 125
miles across and31 0 miles long.The Municipality of
Anchorage is at the center of the rectangle (Exhibit B).
Enclosed within the boundaries of this area is ap-
proximately 50,000 square miles of which approx-
imately 12,000 square miles is taken up by the Inlet
itself while the remaining 38,000 square miles is the
landmass of the drainage basin'.
In terms of political geography the drainage area
boundaries are almost exactly coincidental with the
boundaries of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,the
Municipality of Anchorage,and the Kenai Peninsula
Borough.The southern Plan boundary is coincidental
with the limits of the Outer and Eastern ADF&G
management districts in the Gulf of Alaska.
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Within this section those elements of the natural
environment which exhibit clear and potentially signif-
icant relationships to one or more phases in the
annual life cycle of'the salmon of Cook Inlet will be
highlighted.
2.2.1 Cook Inlet
The entrance to the Inlet is occupied by the un-
populated Barren Islands (Exhibit C).Two large bays
flank the entrance to the Inlet,Kamishak on the west
and Kachemak on the east.On the west a series of
smaller but significant bays are found north of Kami-
shak Bay.They are Iliamna,Iniskin,Chinitna,and Tux-
edni Bays.Each of these is a narrow and fairly lengthy
intrusion into the shore.Above these are two shallow
bays on the west side,Redoubt and Trading Bays,re-
spectively..
Between Redoubt Bay on the west and the mouth
of the Kenai River on the east lies the largest island in
the Inlet,Kalgin;and it is also the most significant
from the perspective of the salmon fishery.
At its upper end the Inlet branches into two major
arms with Fire Island and the Municipality of Anchor-
age in the fork.The Knik Arm to the north and east
reaches to the mouths of the Knik and Matanuska
Rivers near Eklutna.It is the lower portion of this arm
that serves the commercial maritime traffic of Anchor-
age.The Turnagain Arm to the south and east pene-
trates the Chugach Mountains and ends at the mouth
of the Placer River near Portage.The large but shallow
Chickaloon Bay flanks the southern edge of the mouth
of the Turnagain Arm.
----------9
Depths in the central portions of the Inlet range
between 100 and 200 feet.The upper portion of the
Inlet is bounded on the west side,particularly,by
large tidal flats that are regularly exposed in the fluc-
tuations of the 34 foot tidal range which the Inlet
experiences.
The southeastern coast of the Kenai Peninsula
faces on the Gulf of Alaska to the east of the entrance
to Cook Inlet and is characterized by a series of north-
south trending inlets.This area is included in the
study area because it is administered as part of the
Cook Inlet salmon fishery.The most prominent of
these inlets is Resurrection Bay with the City of Sew-
ard at its northern end.
2.2.2 Major Mountain Systems
The mountain ranges which define the watershed
of the Inlet are several and are located at varying dis-
tances from the Inlet (Exhibit D).Along the south-
western edge of the Inlet and close to the shore is the
Aleutian Range.Further to the north on the western
side is the Alaska Range which,near the northern
edge of the watershed,is approximately 120 miles
from the shore of the Inlet.The Alaska Range con-
tinues to form the northern edge of the watershed as
it bends in an easterly direction north of the Denali
Highway.
The first range on the eastern side of the Inlet is
actually located inside the boundaries of the water-
shed.All drainage from the Talkeetna Range reaches
Cook Inlet.
The Chugach and Kenai Ranges form the boun-
dary between Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound
and the Gulf of Alaska.The Kenai Range forms the
eastern side of the Kenai Peninsula,and that portion
of the drainage into the Gulf of Alaska west of Cape
Fairfield is included in the Plan even though it does
not reach Cook Inlet.
It is significant to note that each of these major
ranges has one or more substantial ice fields which
spawn glaciers at the heads of a number of the major
river systems.
2.2.3 Surface Waters
Included in the discussion of surface waters are
the major river systems,creeks,and lakes (Exhibit E).
These features will be considered from two different
perspectives,their individual roles in the hydrology of
the Inlet drainage basin and their individual roles in the
annual production of salmon.In this section only the
physical aspects of these water bodies will be dis-
cussed,but in later sections these features will be
examined again in terms of their salmon support ca-
pacity.
The Cook Inlet drainage contains at least 104
lakes,322 creeks,and 80 rivers which have been
named or otherwise identified 2 •The major lakes on
the west side of the Inlet include Crescent,Kenibuna,
Chakachamna,Beluga,and Lower Beluga.In the
northern portion of the Inlet the larger lakes include
Upper Lake George,Inner Lake George,and Eklutna.
On the Kenai Peninsula are Kenai Lake,Ptarmigan
COOK INLET WATERSHED
MAT ANU SKA·SUSITNA
BOROUGH
--_.-WATERSHED BOUNDARY
----BOROUGH BOUNDARY
GULF OF ALASKA
10
EXHIBIT-B
~.-.r-~:"'---~-
I I \I_______.·1
"","'"I
.,-,<'""".
(
KENAI PENINSULA
BOROUGH
i
I
i
!
I
_ ...J
COOK INLET
TRADING BAY_-;.:;-_
R.EDOUBT BAV
BARREN ISLANDS
.~(!,'rJ'
11
EXHIBIT-C
RESURRECTION
BAY
GULF OF ALASKA
r dQ -c
I-MOUNTAIN RANGES AND VOLCANOES
....
'"""'--'-'~
CD MT.SPURR
®MT.REDOUBT
@ MT.ILIAMNA
®MT.AUGUSTINE
®MT.DOUGLAS
12
1.
-.J
EXHIBI't-D
.--"..-.-'\
SURFACE WATERS ~XHIBIIT-E
./
.....'-
~..--..-\/.
I
(
INNE'"GEORGE
U~E'h GEORGE
I
/
!Placer
-.CRESCENT
~+---UPPER TRAIL
'J.<--.i---GRANT
~~;;;;"It.l'l:I:::::,..,,--PTARMIGAN
""-l..""""'''---KENAI
~--COOPER
'-"-~-UPPERRUSSIAN
-I"
/
.~./
[
./
/
/
I
CRESC~
\
I
I
I
,/J o<'W.~__
/1"/",
I
LAKES
Ril/ers
13
MAJOR CLIMATE ZONES
/
/
~o.-/
{
./
./
/
/
C CONTINENTAL
T TRANSITION
M MARITIME
/
J
//'-
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
i
M i
i
. ...1
EXHIBIT-F
--'~'._0 \
Lake,Grant Lake,Upper Trail Lake,Crescent Lake,
Cooper Lake,Skilak Lake,Hidden Lake,Upper Russian
Lake,Bradley Lake,and the largest lake in the entire
drainage system and the fifth largest in the state,
Tustumena.
The identified creeks are quite evenly distributed
throughout the entire drainage system.
In terms of watershed area and flow the Susitna
River is the largest within the drainage area of the
Inlet.To the west and south of the Susitna the follow-
ing rivers are among the more notable;the Chulitna,
Yentna,Kahiltna and the Skwentna (all tributaries of
the Susitna),the Beluga,the Chakachatna,the
McArthur,the Kustatan,the Big,the Crescent,and
the Paint.To the east and south of the Susitna are the
Talkeetna and Kashwitna (tributaries of the Susitnal.
the Little Susitna,the Matanuska,the Knik,the Eagle
and the Placer Rivers.On the Kenai Peninsula are the
Chickaloon,Swanson,Kenai,Kasilof,Ninilchik,
Anchor,and Fox Rivers.
2.2.4 Climate
The climate within the Inlet drainage area is no
less complex than any of the other natural elements.
Of the four broad climatic zones described for the
State,three occur within the study area (Exhibit F)1.
The Maritime Zone,as the name implies,receives
its major influence from the water.It has compara-
tively heavy precipitation,cool summers and warm
winters.There are generally strong and persistent sur-
face winds.
The Continental Zone exhibits summer and winter
temperature extremes,but surface winds and precipi-
tation are generally light.
The Transition Zone occurs between the other
two and generally exhibits some of the characteristics
of both.
It is very important to note that because of the
extremely varied topography of Alaska and the south-
central region many local variations,microclimates,
occur.
Exhibit G provides weather information for selec-
SELECTED CLIMATE DATA
ted sites within the drainage area and is structured to
reflect a north to south progression from the area near
Mt.McKinley to the mouth of the Inlet.
2.2.5 Seismicity and Volcanism
South central Alaska and the Cook Inlet area,in
particular,are si'tuated on the edge of the North Pa-
cific Plate.Th~refore,they experience a significant
amount of seismic activity which ranges in magnitude
from those tremors perqeived only by scientific instru-
ments to the historic 1964 earthquake,the marks of
which still exist the length of the Inlet.The subsi-
dence and uplift which is associated with the more
severe of these events can make dramatic and long-
term changes in the landforms and,therefore,in the
character of the related surface waters.While present
technology does not allow for accurate predictions of
where and when such events will occur,it is safe to
assume that they will continue to happen with some
regularity and that the results will be locally
important.
Another facet of this very physically active region
is the presence of volcanoes along the western side of
the Inlet.Five prominent peaks have recorded volcanic
activity historically;they are Mounts Augustine,Ili-
amna,Spurr,Redoubt,and Douglas (Exhibit OJ.It
should be noted that Mount Augustine itself forms an
island in Kamishak Bay,while the other four are part
of the mainland.As with seismic activity,volcanic
eruptions do not occur at regular periods;but the
activity is recurring,and Mt.Redoubt was active as
recently as 1966 while Mt.Augustine erupted last in
January,1976.Any eruption could have very signifi-
cant impacts in,at least,a local sense.The ash from
the 1976 eruption of Mt.Augustine still troubles the
hatchery at Tutka Lagoon.
2.2.6 Geology and Soils
The geology and the soils are complexly inter-
woven and of great interest in the context of resource
extraction and development,but they have little direct
effect on the salmon resources.Where the relation-
EXHIBIT-G
LOCATION TEMPERATURE RANGE TEMPERATURE ANNUAL WINDS (KNOTS)
(F)EXTREMES PRECIPITATION
SUMMER WINTER (F)TOTAL/SNOW AVERAGE EXTREME
SUMMIT 40 to 60 -5 to 30 -45t089 20"/119"NE 9.7 E 48.5
TALKEETNA 44 to 68 o to 40 -48t091 29"11 02"N 4.3 NE 38.1
WILLOW 40 to 70 -10t033 -56 to 90 24"/unknown
PALMER 44 to 67 6 to 42 -35 to 90 17"/64"4.4 100.5
ANCHORAGE 46 to 66 4 to 42 -38 to 86 15"/66"
PORTAGE 42 to 64 19 to 45 -37 to 85 58"/138"
SEWARD 44 to 63 18 to 46 -20 to 88 67"/81"
KENAI 42t062 4 to 43 -48t089 20"/69"N 7.6 N 54.3
HOMER 42 to 59 17 to 42 - 15 to 81 28"11 01 "NE 6.6 N 57.7
15
ship is most evident is at the land interface with either
glaciers or surface water features and in setting
stream gradients.
Glacial flour results from glacial abrasion of the
bedrock over which it is passing and is subsequently
picked up by the runoff stream.Because the flour is
extremely fine,it remains in suspension almost indefi-
nitely contributing to the carrying stream's high
turbidity levels.Of equal significance in causing tur-
bidity and setting the character of spawning gravels
are the sands,silts and clays picked up and trans-
ported by the stream.
In another type of situation the permeability of
the soil and the absence of significant slopes combine
to influence the quality of the surface water.In this
situation a bog-type condition is formed producing
water with high organic content,high acidity levels,
and high color levels.The brown water which results
can significantly inhibit light penetration.
2.2.7 Wildlife
The watershed of Cook Inlet contains essentially
the full complement of terrestrial wildlife associated
with Alaska with the major exception of the Polar
bear.This fact is noteworthy in,at least,two
contexts.
Because many of these species are considered
game species and are,therefore,sought both in sport
and subsistence hunting,they reinforce the concept
of resource use.This condition also results in regular
access to most areas of the watershed.
Some of the wildlife species which are present
count the streams and lakes of the area as very signif-
icant parts of their habitat requirements.In this con-
text they influence the habitat of the stream or lake
and may act directly on the salmon resources.The
interaction with the salmon resources may be as
direct as the predatory character of the feeding Brown
bears on the McNeil River or somewhat indirect as the
habitat alteration created by beaver dams.
Included in these considerations must be the
marine mammals in the Inlet.Among those that fre-
quent the Inlet,the Beluga whales are those most
commonly recognized as salmon predators.
2.2.8 Vegetation
The Alaska Regional Profile,South Central Region
in its discussion of the vegetative communities of the
Cook Inlet Subregion describes nine different types.
These nine can be divided into two sub-categories,
the forest communities and the non-forest commu-
nities'.
The four forest types are widely distributed
throughout the drainage area (Exhibit H).The Coastal
Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Forest is found most
notably in the vicinity of Kachemak Bay,Chinitna-
Tuxedni Bays,and the Turnagain Arm.The Bottom-
land Spruce-Poplar Forest is found _along the main
channels of the Susitna River and the banks of the
Kenai River.The Upland Spruce-Hardwood Forest is
found in the vicinity of Tyonek and near Skilak Lake.
The Lowland Spruce-Hardwood Forest is found north
of Kenai and the Sterling Highway and in the flood-
plain of the Susitna River.~
The five non-forest types include the High Brush
community which within the watershed is found
almost exclusively on the west side of the Inlet south
16
of Tyonek.The Low Brush Bog and Muskeg communi-
ties dot the floodplain of the Susitna River and the
western side of the Kenai Peninsula.The Moist
Tundra is dominant in the upper reaches of the Su-
sitna River drainage north and east of the Talkeetna
Mountains;The Wet Tundra occurs north of Kache-
mak Bay and near the mouth of the Susitna River.
Finally,the Alpine Tundra and Barren Ground is the
dominant community in the elevations over 2,500
feet.
2.2.9 Fish
2.2.9.1 Salmon
Five species of salmon (sockeye,coho,king,
pink,and chum)are harvested in the subsistence,
sport,and commercial fisheries in Cook Inlet and its
tributaries.Those five species are,in fact,the focal
point of the Plan and will,therefore,receive the most
attention.The following chapters will develop the
background and status of the salmon species in detail.
However,it is important to realize that this emphasis
does not mean that there are no other fish resources
of value in the region.
2.2.9.2 Non-Salmon Anadromous
and Freshwater Species
Several non-salmon species are prominent in the
waters of the Cook Inlet region,and four of those are
anadromous.Lake trout,arctic grayling,whitefish,
sculpin,lamprey,longnose sucker,and arctic char are
the most abundant exclusively freshwater species.
Rainbow trout,Dolly Varden,smelt and stickleback
may be anadromous or may be exclusively freshwater
on a site-by-site basis.Northern pike have been intro-
duced illegally into some Kenai Peninsula waters.
2.2.9.3 Non-Salmon Marine Species
Within the Cook Inlet region there are substantial
harvests of herring (currently in a low cycle)and
halibut on a commercial basis as well as a halibut
sport fishery.In addition to the harvest of these two
species there is some effort extended to harvest
groundfish with the potential for an even larger re-
source harvest.
2.2.9.4 Shellfish
Shellfish play an important role in the biological
community within the Inlet waters and are also suf-
ficiently diverse and pbundant to warrant harvest
efforts.Dominant in this harvest are king,dungeness
and tanner crabs,razor and hardshell clams,and
shrimp.
2.2.10 Summary
The natural environment of the Inlet has many
features that have a direct influence on the salmon
resources or are sufficiently inviting to human activity
to have an indirect effect.
Cook Inlet is very elongated,and this length pro-
vides a wide variety of habitats for the salmon re-
sources.The sizeable tidal range has a direct bearing
on land oriented harvest techniques.Because the
salmon move into the Inlet at the south and progress
in some cases all the way into the Susitna River drain-
age at the north,they are the subjects of a sequential
harvest pressure that is as diverse as the seine boats
operating south of Homer and the sport fisherman on
Byers Creek high in the Susitna drainage.Additionally
the dimensions of the Inlet are great enough to pro-
vide a situation in which,because of their migratory
MAJOR FORESTS
FORESTED AREAS
EXHIBIT-H
/"
/
-"/'
./-"
..---'/
/
j
/
I'
(
,--.C"l~~~.J.I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
____._._..-_.•_"._.v_",•..J
17
characteristics,not all runs of fish are exposed to
harvest at the same locations.
Essentially all of the major mountain systems that
bound the drainage of Cook Inlet contain major ice-
fields and glaciers,which means that many of the
watercourses that feed the Inlet are not dependent
exclusively on annual precipitation to maintain their
flow regimes.
The varying character of the surface waters
makes their investigation,assessment and under-
standing variable on a situation-by-situation'basis.
Generally the rivers on the east and west sides of the
Inlet are shorter and have a more clearly defined
channel which makes understanding of the individual
system somewhat easier.However,the same charac-
teristics make the system more vulnerable to a single
altering factor.The rivers in the northern part of the
drainage have much longer and much more braided
courses making them more difficult to inventory,but
less susceptible to any single alteration.
The largest lakes in the system are located to the
east and west of the Inlet within fifty miles of the Inlet
shore.Three dense clusters of smaller lakes occur in
the northwest corner of the Kenai Peninsula,just
north of the Knik Arm,and east of the Talkeetna
Mountains in the upper reaches of the Susitna River
system.
The climate plays a very active role in the Cook
Inlet salmon fishery.The intensive periods of rain
which can occur may result in flooding that scours the
stream channels of the eggs which are buried there.
With low flow and an extremely cold period anchor
ice may appear in the smaller streams causing high
egg mortality.Strong winds during the fishing season
may cause changes in the timing and pattern of fish
movement in the Inlet.
Seismic activity has and may very well again
cause the interruption of an existing stream channel
or the opening of a channel previously blocked.Full
scale volcanic activity can cause widespread stream
blockage,high turbidity;and excessive sedimentation
of streams.
Some less spectacular forms of geologic activity
will also influence the salmon resources.Glacial flour
and the other soil material that is carried by the
streams may inhibit stream productivity and substan-
tially hinder the accurate counting of salmon escape-
ment.Where soils produce a bog-type situation,the
water may also be colored limiting counting effective-
ness and increasing the levels of organics and acidity
in the water.
The major interaction between the wildlife and
the salmon resources occurs in situations.where
management for one or more species of wildlife pro-
duces limitations on measures considered significant
to the maintenance of the salmon resources.It can be
assumed that beaver activity and the resulting dam
removal projects will be an ongoing situation.
The regional vegetation is of concern in the plan-
ning of salmon resources primarily in areas where
mature spruce,hemlock,or hardwood inviW timber
harvest.In this type of situation it is possible for there
to be substantial local change in the habitat condi-
tions and generally in a negative fashion.
The relevance of other fish species to this.plan-
18
ning effort derives primarily from the situations in
which those species function in either a predatory or
competitive role with respect to the salmon.
It is clear that many aspects of the natural envi-
ronment exert an influence on the salmon resources
of Cook Inlet,and that in many instances the separ-
ation between the elements of the natural environ-.
ment and those of the human environment is neither
easy nor practical.
2.3 OVERVIEW OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT
In this section those elements which are primarily
related to or arise from human activity and which can
and do produce an effect on the salmon resources will
be examined.To a greater extent ~han with the
natural environment these actions may be indirect.
That is the action may appear to have nothing to do
with the salmon resource,but the results of the action
'may significantly affect the potential of an area to
support salmon.
2.3.1 Land Status and Use
Much of the effectiveness of this type of planning
can be dependent upon who owns the property in
question,what their actions are apt to be,and there-
fore what uses may be implemented on that property.
2.3.1.1 Land Status
Land status ,and ownership with the Cook Inlet
region is,if anything,even more complex than many
of the other human and natural elements that make up
the region.In a very simplified system there is federal,
state,borough,municipality,native village and re-
gional associations,and individual ownership.In
addition there are ongoing programs and legislative
actions that continue to transfer parcels of land be-
tween these various owners.Adding further com-
plexity to this picture are the situations where'there
are two or more overlapping claims to the same
property.
It is certainly true that precise definition of owner-
~hip and status of very specific parcels of land may be
critical to some facet of the management of the
salmon resources.However,for the purposes of the
Plan the primary distinction that will be made is be-
tween land which is owned by either the federal or
state government and is designated to a particular
status category (park,recreation area,forest,refuge
or monument)and all other lands (Exhibits I and J)J.
Under.those public ownership conditions there is a
stability of status and a known set of operational or
management policies;and alteration of those policies
is open to public input and should be in the public
interest.Land which is held by individuals or by
government in some generalized status category has a
much less certain future.
There is another category of land status which is
not defined by ownership but rather by the character
of the site environment and which is subject to a spe-
cific set of use guidelines and regulations.A notable
situatiqn within this category is that of the coastal
zone.The importance of the biological communities in
this type of area has been widely recognized and
accepted,and various state and federal programs
have been instituted to assure its preservation.In
SPECIAL STATUS LAND AREA
OWNERSHIP AND NAME
FEDERAL
Katmai National Park and Preserve
Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve
Denali National Park and Preserve
Chugach National Forest
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
Kenai Fjords National Park
STATE
Denali State Park
Matanuska Glacier Wayside
Long Lake Wayside
Bonnie Lake Wayside
King Mountain Wayside
Moose Creek Wayside
Finger Lake Wayside
Big Lake (South)Wayside
Big Lake lEast)Wayside
Rocky Lake Wayside
Nancy Lake Wayside
Willow Creek Wayside
Nancy Lake Recreation Area
Chugach State Park
Mirror Lake Wayside
Peters Creek Wayside
Kachemak Bay State Park
Kachemak Wilderness Park
Bernice Lake Wayside
Kasilof River Wayside
Johnson Lake Wayside
Clam Gulch Picnic Wayside
Ninilchik Wayside
Deep Creek Wayside
Stariski Wayside
Silver King Wayside
Anchor River Wayside
Captain Cook Recreation Area
Independence Mine State Historic Park
Sheep Creek Wayside
Izaak Walton Wayside
Funny River Wayside
Upper Kenai River Wayside
Kenai River Islands Wayside
Morgan's Landing State Recreation Area
Bing's Landing Wayside
Slikok Creek Wayside
Lower Kenai River Wayside
McNeil River Game Sanctuary
Total
19
EXHIBIT-I
AREA IN
INLET REGION
(SQ.MI.)
•Estimated
810.00'
10.00'
1800.00'
3260.00'
2130.00'
3269.00'
886.00'
440.63
.36
.58
.05
.03
.06
.07
.03
.03
.08
.05
.14
35.45
773.76
.14
.09
187.45
325.50
.01
.07
.09
.05
.02
.07
.05
.27
,09
5,66
.42
.01
.01
.31
.50
.60
.40
.02
.03
.15
149.63
14,087.96
MAJOR PARK LAND
.........._.~;
EXHtBIT-J
....-._../
__..J
1 KATMAI NAT'L.PARK AND PRESERVE
2 MCNEIL RIVER STATE GAME SANCTUARY
3 LAKE CLARK NAT'L.PARK AND PRESERVE
4 TUXEDNI NATIONAL WILDLIFE.REFUGE
5 DENALI NAT'L.PARK AND PRESERVE
6 DENALI STATE PARK
7 CHUGACH STATE PARK
8 CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST
9 KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
10 KENAI FJORDS NATIONAL PARK
11 KACHEMAK BAY STATE AND WILDERNESS
PARKS
20
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
..,..-
/
..,..-.---
./-',I"
/
,"":>.•./
f,
.I
.I
/
I
""'--._.-"
......--./
;'
j
//'
"I
i
I'
I
i
I
.,
I.
_._._.:-J
CD SUSITNA HYDROELECTRICoWILLOWCAPITALSITE
®POINT MACKENZIE AGR\CULlUREoBELUGACOAL
®BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
®ALTERNATIVE PETROCHEMICAL SITES
CV GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
21
'Low growth projections for Anchorage,which is the key to the area,were 205,000 for 1980 and 375,200 for 2000,
POPULATION EXHIBIT-L
,
1970 1977 1978 1980
Anchorage 126,385 182,000 179,800 174,000'
Kenai-Cook Inlet 14,250 21,300 22,300 25,000
Mat-Su Borough 6,509 14,800 16,100 18,000....
Total 147,144 218,100 218,200 217,000
!Io :.tJ;·
:+J :~
i~
t',·
,j
L
Alaska there is much attention being given-to this
issue'through the Coastal Zone Management Program,
the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 404 Wetland Per-
mit Program and the Critical Habitat designations.
Finally land status may be effectively permanently
changed by the installation of a single large project.
The proposed,Susitna Hydroelectric Project in the
upper reaches of the Susitna River is an example.
While the actual acreage covered by the Project struc-
tures is relatively small,the acreage which will auto-
matically come under the use controls dictated by the
requirements of the power project is dramatically
larger:
2.3.1.2 Land Use
Direct impacts can be expected when there is any
change in the use of land.It is generally true that the
magnitude of the impacts increases in proportion to
the scale of the project.The location of the project
and its character play large roles in establishing what
the potential impacts may be (Exhibit K).There are,at
least,three examples of this type of change in land
use that are currently viewed as probable within the
Inlet area.They are the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project,the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,and the
development of the Beluga coal fields.
In the instance of the two power projects the area
actually altered by project elements is comparatively
small,but the area that then comes under control of
the policies governing the operation of the project is
quite large.'
The extraction of minerals in instances sLich as
that that can be expected in the Beluga coal fields has
potential impacts that are considerably greater than in
the hydroelectric projects.The actual disruption
caused by the extraction and the effect of the
exposed terrain can be significant.
There is a strong tendency to look for the damage
that can accrue from major development and to over-
look potential benefits that can derive from nominal
modifications of projects apparently unrelated to
salmon resources.The review of each major project
should include at the earliest possible opportunity
consideration of project features that might serve a,
dual purpose by additionally favoring the enhance-
ment of salmon resources.
With all such projects there is the potential for
less obvious indirect impacts which may,in the last
analysis,be greater and longer lasting than the imme-
diate impacts.Secondary development that occurs in
support of the projects usually accounts for'greater
area of disturbance and involves less oversight and
planning for minimization of negative impacts.
The availability of additional electrical power may
result'in increased residential and industrial growth,
The move of the capital from Juneau to Willow would
also'create increased residential and commercial
development.This type of development proliferation'
may pose real threats to habitat.'
The secondary development associated with re-
source extraction projects such as that at Beluga is
most often in the nature of transportation and pro-
cessing facilities,and these also pose concerns for
salmon habitat.
2.3.2 Population Characteristics
The population of the Cook Inlet region had'
increased rather continuously since prior to World
War II until very recently,and the rate of that.increase
in any given period has reflected the "boom-bust"
character of Alaskan development.The 1980 census
indicates that over'52 percent of the state's popula-
tion resides in the Cook Inlet region.Of the 217,000
persons residing it;!the region nearly 80 percent (ap-
proximately 174,000)live within the Municipality of
Anchorage.
In addition to being at the physical center of the
region,Anchorage has been and continues to be the
dominant population center of the region and the
state.Of the remaining 43,000 people in the area
about 58 percent (25,000)live in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough,and the balance of 42 percent live in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
The trends in population growth seem to be
changing within the region (Exhibit L).In February of
1979 the Economics Task Force of the Southcentral
Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B)issued South-
central Alaska's Economy and Population,1965-
2025:A Base Study and Projection.In that document
they drew three possible scenarios for the growth of
the region;a high case,an intermediate case,and a
,low case.Although it is too early to be certain,the
1980 census figures make it appear that even the low
growth scenario was considerably optimistic.The
,population in Anchorage appears to have peaked.at
about 180,000 in 1978 and has now declined
slightly4.Growth in the region outside of Anchorage
has continued rather steadily5.The population of the
region in relation to the total state population also
appears to have peaked in 1978 at about 54 percent,
and has now declined to about 52 percent.
For the purposes of this Plan the distribution of
that population becomes very significant (Exhibit M).
If the study area were to be divided'in half with a
northeast-southwest line,the overwhelming prepon-
22
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
•POPULATION.CENTERS '
••MAJOR HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
23
EXHIBIT~M .i
derance of the population would be found in the
eastern half of the area.It is only in this half that
there is a highway system,and the population has
and will continue to focus along the major roadways.
Access to the western half of the area is achieved
exclusively by air or by water.About the only organ-
ized population center in the west is the village of
Tyonek with a population of approximately 300
people.
2.3.3 Description of Economic Sectors
Two broad economic sectors are involved in this
analysis of the Cook Inlet region,the basic sector and
the support sector6 •The basic industries are mining,
manufacturing,construction,agriculture-forestry-
fisheries,and federal government.Support sector
industries are transportation,communications,finan-
cial-insurance-real estate,services,and state and local
government.
2.3.3.1 Basic Sector
Oil production,as part of mining,and construc-
tion related to that production dominated the econo-
mics of the area from 1965 to 1975.As Cook Inlet
oil production decreased after 1 970 and fishing pro-
duction and value increased 1976-1978,there was a
large change in the contribution of each to the basic
economy of Cook Inlet excluding Anchorage:
Gas production,on the other hand,continues
relatively strong,and recent discoveries near Kenai
may indicate another major gas field in .the Cook Inlet
region.In 1978 the Cook Inlet region yielded 42
percent of Alaska's total gas production.
Some portion of the monies generated by,or in
association with,the Prudhoe Bay oil and gas field
and Trans-Alaskan Pipeline eventually filters into the
Cook Inlet economy.Secondary impact to regional
manufacturing,construction and services is certainly
significant;and since the completion of the oil pipe-
line,construction has declined by up to 66 percent
compared to pipeline construction days.
International demand for what was previously a
domestic canned product has rapidly changed the
nature of the entire salmon processing industry.The
addition'of conversion to freezer plants in order to
meet the demand of the fresh frozen market has re-
.quired millions of dollars of capital investment by local
processors.Cook Inlet processors now have the
ability to process approximately 30 percent of the
state salmon production as fresh frozen product.In
terms of numbers of fish .harvested commercially and
value of the catch to the economy,1 978 was a·
record year in Cook Inlet.Fisheries growth,in terms
of real dollars,has been quite strong.
2.3.3 ..2 Support Sector
•-The contribution of recreational fishing is very
'significant to the economy of specific localities in the
region.It is not as significant to the basic sectors as
the other portions of the fisheries which are,in turn,
overshadowed by the influence Anchorage has on the
economy.Anchorage growth is affe.cted by activity in
basic sectors of other areas -in the state.Of the
321 ,000 visitors to Alaska in 1 977 approximately 16
percent,or '51 ,360,indicated they engaged in sport
fishing according to the State Department of Com-
merce and Economic Development.There is no refine-
ment of the data to separate fresh water from .salt
water fishing,boat from bank fishing or fishing in the
Cook Inlet region from other areas of the state.
Cook Inlet region tourism increased at about the
state-wide rate in 1 978 (10.5 percent),and was
steady or experienced some growth in 1 979.If gov-
ernment growth figures for the state are applicable to
the Cook Inlet as a region,then the trend toward
growth in government (5 percent increase in 1978)
may continue.The statewide growth in state and
local government amounted to a 62 percent increase
between 1972 and 1977.
2.3.4 Employment and.Labor Force
The Cook Inlet region has been divided into four
statistical units.The divisions are Anchorage,Kenai-
Cook Inlet,Seward and Matanuska-Susitna.These
foW are added together to provide data in this section
representative of the Cook Inlet area.Fairly reliable
estimates can be generated for projections on labor
and employment by integrating present data with
population projections.I
In 1977 the State labor force was 174,000.Of
these,99,496 were in the Cook Inlet area.The pro-
jections for the five year period 1978-1983 show
that job openings resulting from industry expansion
plus death and retirement separations will be greatest
for clerical occupations.
The service worker category is expected to in-
crease nearly as much.A decline is projected for the
craft,operative and laborer occupations.
While the Anchorage area shows a significant di-
versification of labor force other areas in the Cook
Inlet depend almost exclusively on fisheries,oil and
gas production,agricultural production and tourism.
Unless significant oil and gas sources are discovered
in lower Cook Inlet,it appears likely that production
and revenue from Cook Inlet petroleum fields will con-
tinue to decline significantly.
.Basic sector employment in Cook Inlet by the
year 2000 with low development is projected to be
slightly below 35,000.Present basic sector employ-
ment is estimated at 32,000 in Cook Inlet.
Most fisheries activities which provide employ-
ment are labor intensive and rate'high in percentage
of jobs provided in the Cook Inlet region compared
with its commodity value.A value of commodity com-
parison and job provided comparison would yield
different ordinal placement for fisheries on economic
tables.
2.3.5 Economic Outlook for the Region
The economic outlook for the region is divided
into two areas:non-fishery oriented activities and
fishery related activity.The former category includes
oil and gas production,tourism,construction,govern-
ment and service related industries.
The major non-fishery related activity potential on
the horizon is the.proposed Alaska Natural Gas Pipe-
line.This project,which would affect most of Alaska,
is projected to cost upwards of 20 billion dollars.An
unknown,but significant portion of the total would
accrue to the Cook Inlet region either as direct salary
and wages to local workers hired to work on the pro-
ject,or as.a multitude of infiltrations throughout the
regional economy through service and support related
activity.
Additional regional economic benefit would be
deri~ed from oil and gas or energy related projects
such as the proposed Pacific Alaska LNG plant at
Kenai,the discovery and production of oil and gas
from the lower Cook Inlet OCS region,the Dow-Shell
petrochemical facility located at anyone of several lo-
cations within the Inlet drainage or the development
of major coal deposits on the west side of Cook Inlet.
It should be pointed out,however,that none of the
above projects has received all the necessary Federal
and State permits and approval,and in some cases,
financial arrangements are still lacking.
Tourism in 1979 increased about 10 percent over
1978 and as long as fuel supplies remain available,
tourism is,expected to increase.·The long term impact
of highway construction just south of Anchorage on
tourist travel to the Kenai Peninsula is unknown,but
with construction expected to continue until 1987,
some decreas'e in Kenai Peninsula tourist travel might
be expected.
Non-government construction activity in 1978 in
the wake of Trans-Alaska Pipeline completion,has
dropped by up to 66 percent.Future construction ac-
tivity,especially in the Cook Inlet region,will probably
be closely related to developments in related sectors
such as oil and gas projects and potential for in-
creased governmental spending on construction
related activities.
With regard to growth by the government sector,
current indicators predict a slight to moderate
increase in government growth in terms of real dol-
lars.For instance,the federal government's overall
employment was 4.7 percent lower in 1978 than
1977,while state government increased,about 2
percent in 1978 and local government increased
,about 5 percent for the same time period.
Fishery related activity'through the turn of the
century (for the purpose of this plan limited to salmon
fishing)is predicted to increase for recreational fish-
"ing,fish processing and commercial fishing.
2.3.6 Summary
Most of the impacts that the human environment
may have on the salmon resources differ in at least a
couple of categoric ways from those considered in the
natural environment.First,they are largely avoidable.
If the potential problems are recognized they can be
minimized through plan modifications.Second,in the
mostdramat,ic case the project could be eliminated if
the threat were deemed to be sufficient.
The ownership and status of a great deal of land
within the region is in the public domain because it is
held by either the state or federal government.The
short and long-term policies that govern such situa-'
tions greatly facilitate the planning for the enhance-
ment of salmon resources by adding predictability.
Secondly,there is most often a single entity,the
agency with jurisdiction,with whom cooperative
efforts may be undertaken.Analysis of problem situa-
tions and proposals for enha'ncement projects can
benefit substantially from recognition of salmonre-
sources.These types of lands as a group are afforded
some protection,can serve multiple resource func-
tions,and are dedicated to serving the public interest.
Land use in the active sense of alteration and
some form of development can and will have signifi-
cant impact on salmon resources and the planning
that is done for them.Anticipated projects such as'
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and'the Beluga coal
field development need to be assessed at the earliest
possible time to determjne their potential effects and
to search out opportunities for ancillary development
of resource potential.
At least two aspects of th~,population of the re-
gion are significant,absolute numbers of people and
the distribution of those people.During the period.
between 1975 and 1980 the total population of the.
region peaked and seemed to stabilize,so that imme-
diate large scale increases'in the numbers of people
'potentially available to harvest the salmon resources
is not expected.However,distribution of that popula-
tionalong the major highways continues to occur and
to that extent additional loss of habitat may be ex-
pected:Additionally,redistribution of the population
may tend to change the locations of fishing pressure
particularly with reference to sport fishing.
It is expected that employment opportunities and
the labor force that will be active will continue to be
as healthy or healthier than for other'areas of the
state.The labor force will be more stable than in areas
where large construction projects are underway.
Although fishing has flot been and will probably
never be the dominant economic sector in Cook Inlet,
it is a persistent and significant factor in the economy
of the region._
With this background of the more prominent
natural and human environmental factors at work in
the Cook Inlet region,it is now reasonable to examine
more closely the nature of.the salmon resource and
the character of the user groups that regularly harvest
that resource.
2.4 SALMON FISHERY
The story qf the man-salmon relationship in Cook
Inlet has been one of increasing participation,harvest,
specialization,and management and regulation.
2.4.1 Overview
There are several aspects of the salmon fishery in '
Cook Inlet that are either equally important to all three
major user groups or play an important role in the rela-
tionship between the user groups.
2.4.1.1 Historical Perspective
The earliest human interaction with the salmon of
Cook Inlet came with the native harvest on a relatively
small scale as a means of direct life support.Com-
mercial and sport harvest of the resource were non-
existent.
There is no reason to think that the basic runs of
salmon into the Inlet were different than they are
today in any very substantive fashion,even though
there may be significant,changes in the character of
the runs into particular streams or lakes (Exhibit N).
In the 1700's salmon had gained "limited"com-
mercial significance for the Russians who 'were
trading them in barter fashion for other commodities.
In 1821 the Russians established exclusive trading
rights in Alaska.
With the acquisition of Alaska by the United
States of America in 1867,the scene was set for
some new perspectives.By the late 1800's commer-
25
cial harvest of the salmon resource had begun on a
measurable scale,and the salmon were being directly
marketed rather than bartered.Only three of the five
species that are now prominent were recorded in this
early commercial effort,sockeye"coho,and king
salmon.
In the early part of this century pink and chum'
salmon started to appear in appreciable numbers in
the commercial catches.Additionally the sport fishery
began to develop so that all three,of the,major user
groups under consideration today were present,if not
large or well organized.As early,as 1936 sockeye
salmon escapement was being monitored in Fish
Creek.In 1947 the drift fishery began asa new com-
mercial gear group,and in 1954 it ,was prohibited in
the Northern District.In the period preceding state-
hood in 1959 general management of the salmon
resources was under the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice ..W,ith'the passage of statehood the use of fish
traps which had been such a large part of the early
commercial fishery was prohibited.
The earthquake in 1964 caused the loss of much
pink salmon habitat in the Lower Inlet and in the Kasi-
lof River.
Since the middle of the 1940's there have been
marked changes in the character of the,harvest of
Cook Inlet'salmon.Not only has there.been a,pro-
nounced increase in the number of harvesters,but
types and quality of gear have improved.During this.
same period there have been increasing efforts to
understand the fishery through such programs as
escapement counts and to 'manage the resource on
the basis of those counts so that the continuation of
the resource in a viable condition is assured.
2.4.1.2 The Salmon
There are very pronounced differences in the
numbers of each species of salmon that annually re-
turn to the Inlet.The largest commercial species
harvests occur with the dominant year·pink salmon.
The next largest harvest is taken from the sockeye
salmon.In general the chum salmon harvests rank
third along with the non-dominant year pink salmon.
Fourth in this type of ranking is the annual harvest of
coho salmon,and king salmon experience the smallest
harvest.
As can be seen in Exhibit 1\1 most of the five
species come to the Inlet in more than one annual run.
That is the total annual return of a species to Cook In-
let may be made up of several distinct runs spread
over several weeks or,,perhaps,as much as several
months.In many cases there is a further distinction
possible based on the particular river system to which
the return is being made.
.Adding to the complexity of this developing pic-
ture is the fact that these same five species have
different life cycles.There is consider-able variation in
the amount of time that will pass between the time a
given'group of eggs'is deposited and the time when
the product of those eggs will return as mature and
spawning adults.Although the-king salmon may have
a seven-year return period,they and the sockeye
salmon are considered to have a four to six-year
return'pattern.The chum and coho salmon are gener-
ally considered to be four-year fish.The pink salmon
which occur on a two-year cycle have the sho~test
.-
"turn around time".However,the two-year cycle of
the pink salmon is further divided into a distinctly
dominant year and a clearly non-dominant year.This
has been as dramatically illustrated as in the years
1961,1962,and 1963 when the commercial catch
was respectively 33 7,394;4,960,030;and
234,052 fish.
Finally there are still further distinctions which
can be made based on suitabilities of the species for
.the differing types of processing and the variations in
per-pound prices which are paid for the different
species.
2.4.1.3 User Group Definition and Development
The large size and diversity of the region have
contributed to the formation of various salm9n inter-
est groups.The groups are frequently constituted in
such a way that membership represents only one
facet of an individual's involvement in the fishery.
Because of the wide geographic area cov~red by
the region,fishermen have formed "local"associa-
tions that focus on either the area in which they live
or the area in which they do the bulk of their fishing,
This alignment of fishermen ignores both the reason
for fishing and the means by which the fishing is
done..
In recent time three groups of fishermen have
been generally recognized by the reason for which
they fish.The subsistence fisherman represents a
continuation of a concept that goes back to the earli-
est involvement of man with the salmon resource.'
Although what constitutes subsistence fishing in
today's context is.the subject of ongoing discussion
and redefinition,the basic'premise is that the fish that
are caught are directly consumed by those who catch
them or are traded for some other life sustaining
necessity.
Sport fishing represents the most recent broadly
recognized fisherman's group.In this instance there is
a strong,if not dominant,recreation perspective;but
to th.e extent that those fish which are caught are
consumed by the fisherman it represents a quasi-
subsistence fisherman's group.,
The commercial fishery is the largest harvester of
the three major user groups and has the longest
clearly quantifiable record of,active involvement with
the salmon resource.Although there is a'substantial
range in the size of the commercial fishing operations,
all of the commercial fishermen are harvesting the
salmon resource for the primary purpose of sale to a
processor and ultimately to a large international mar-
ket'.It is also true that in many cases a small fraction
of the individual commercial fisherman's catch is
diverted to his own table to fill a quasi-subsistence
function .
Finally commercial fishermen ca'n and sometimes
do align themselves according to the type of gear
which they use in fishing;set gill net,drift gill net,or
purse seine.The la'rgest of the three gear group types
is the set gill net fishermen,It should be noted that
set gill nets are the primary gear used by the acknowl-
edged subsistence fishermen.The second largest gear
group contains the drift gill net fishermen,and the
third is that comprised of the purse seine fishermen.
It is from this context of ',overlapping interests
that the umbrella organization of the'Cook Inlet Aqua-
26
-
MAJOR SALMON RUN TIMING EXHIBIT-N
~
-,..-
'",,~..
SUSITNA
RIVER
r--KIN G -:-----j
I-SOCKEYE -l
r-PINK~
\
I--CHUM--j
I-COH0 ---i I
I
May June JUly.August September
KENAI
RIVER
~KING----/I I
I-SOCKEYE ---l I I
I---PINK ----j
I-COHO --I.I ?,.,I
I
May
I
June
I
July August September
-
KASILOF·
RIVER
~KING~
I--SOCKEYE---j
I---PINK ------l
I r-COHO-j I
I May I June I July I August.
I
September
CRESCENT
RIVER
~SOCKEYE ----l
-
/--COHO.?,.,
I May June July August September
27
culture Association has emerged as the single most
comprehensive group representing salmon resource
users.
2.4.1.4 CIAA Relationships With User Groups
A total of twenty-six of the twenty-nine seats on
the CIAA Board of Directors is now occupied,and di-
versity of representation encompassed by those
twenty-six Directors is reasonably extensive.
Sport fish .representation through the Izaak
Walton League was present at the early formational
meetings.Later they requested and were granted a
Board seat.The Kenai Peninsula Conservation Society
became a member during 1978,but withdrew in
1981.In late 1979 and early 1980 two other sport
fish groups,the Kenai River Guides Association and
the Alaska Sport Fishing Association,inititated a dia-
logue with the CIAA about future membership on the
Board.In 1981 the Matanuska Valley Sportsmen
sought and obtained membership on the Board.
Among the municipalities the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough,the Kenai Peninsula Borough,the Munici-
pality of Anchorage,the City of Seward and Kache-
mak City have seats on the Board.This large
representation of governmental units is unique among
Alaskan aquaculture associations.
In most areas of the state commercial fishermen
are organized around gear type,but in Cook Inlet this
is not the case.After lengthy deliberations,represen-
tation on the CIAA Board for commercial fishermen
was set at (3)from each of the five commercial fisher-
men's organizations then in existence.Those organi-
zations were the North Pacific Fisheries Association
based in Homer;the Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund of
Ninilchik;the Commercial Fishermen of Cook's Inlet in
Kenai;the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Cooperative
Association of Soldotna;and the Cook Inlet Fisher-
men's Association of Anchorage.
The processors had been represented by an indi-
vidual from Salamatof Seafoods since the Board was
organized.The representation from this group
changed in 1981 when a representative from Royal
Pacific Fisheries accepted the seat which the prior
representative had vacated.
Other groups have representation on the Board.
The University of Alaska has been active on the
Board,and its representative currently serves as presi-
dent of the Board.The Cook Inlet Region,Inc.,the
regional native corporation,has a seat on the Board as
does the Ninilchik Village Council.
2.4.1.5 Fisheries Management
Superimposed on the salmon and the various
salmon harvesters is a management structure which
regulates how the needs of resource maintenance and
enhancement and resource harvest will be achieved.
The agency with jurisdiction is the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game operating under th€policies of the
Alaska Board of Fisheries.
For purposes of administration and management
the ADF&G has created a number of divisions within
the Cook Inlet area (Exhibit 0).The two broadest divi-
sions are the Upper and Lower Cook Inlet Manage-
ment Areas;The separation between the two is a line
extending due west from Anchor Point.This division
has considerable significance because the character of
the fishery in each of the two areas is quite differe!1t.
28
The overwhelming majority of the set net fishing and
all of the drift fishing occur in the Upper Inlet Area,
while all of the seine fishing occurs in the Lower Inlet
Area.Each of the two major areas is further subdi-
vided as shown in Exhibit 0,but the distinction
between the Northern District and the Central District
is worthy of special note because drift fishing is only
allowed in the Central District.
2.4.2 Subsistence Fishery
It has already been acknowledged that subsis-
tence fishing is the oldest category of salmon use that
is presently recognized.Accounts of how it was done,
by whom,and under what personal relationships are
numerous and varied.It is sufficient to indicate that at
least in the days prior to statehood and in some cases
following 1959 those who had a subsistence need to
harvest salmon were able to do so either directly or
through informal arrangements with commercial har-
vesters.However,recently the concept of subsis-
tence fishing has come under scrutiny and been sub-
jected to new and generally expanded definition.
Although criteria will be established and refined on a
year-by-year basis,there is no immediate prospect for
a firm and lasting definition on which precise planning
can be based.
2.4.2.1 Regulations
The general trend of subsistence fishing regula-
tions from 1960 through 1980 has been one of
steady tightening.The seasons have gotten shorter as
have the weekly fishing periods.However during this
same period the participation in the subsistence
fishery has expanded because of broader public
awareness.The subsistence fishery has generally
been governed by the same regulations that covered
the commercial fishery.
In 1980 and 1981 there has been a concerted
effort on the part of the state to define subsistence
fishing in a way that will reduce and control the size
of the fishery while still providing the resource to
those who depend upon it.
2.4.2.2 Catch Analysis
During the 1960's and early 1970's the subsis-
tence catch in the Inlet area ranged between 2,000
and 6,000 fish annually,while during the same period
the number of permits ranged from 170 to 450.
In 1980 in the Inlet area 1,781 subsistence per-
mits were issued,and that does not include 372
special permits that were issued for either special
short openings or special areas.Excluding the special
permits which accounted for about 2,000 to 4,000
fish,the subsistence catch for the year wa.s 21,366
fish or an average of 12 fish per permiF.
2.4.2.3 Economic Assessment
The people who are eligible for subsistence fish-
ing may not have been finally defined;and,therefore,
their numbers are not concretely known.For this
reason it is difficult to make an assessment of the
economic impact of this fishery.At its current level of
activity it is clear that it does not rank with either the
commercial or sport fishery in terms of overall eco-
nomic benefit.However,this fact does not lessen the
individual economic benefit that may accrue to the
individual subsistence fisherman in the form of re-
duced household expenditures.
FISH LNG DISTRICTS
(U)UPPER COOK INLET MANAGEMENT AREA
(Ll LOWER COOK INLET MANAGEMENT AREA
29
EXHIBIT-O
.r.:~'.....~"..~...
#~'."~. ".'.'....?
EASTERN
DISTRICT
III
OUTER DISTRICT III
a;:c;J_W C _C _
2.4.3 Sport Fishery
2.4.3.1 Fishing Pressure
Sport fishing effort in Cook Inlet is far more in-
tense than in any other area of the state due to the
state's uneven distribution of population.Annually
since 1977 an angler survey,conducted by a series
of mail questionnaires,has provided an accurate esti-
mate of statewide and regional angler use (Appendix
5).In 1979 this survey indicated a total of 213,309
anglers fished in Alaska,and 59 percent of all
statewide angling effort occured in Cook Inlet and
Kenai Peninsula waters (Exhibit Pl.This was up from
the 44 percent measured in a Boeing Computer Ser-
vices Division study in 1 973 8 •
SPORT FISHING EFFORT
postal survey (Exhibit 0).Angler use and harvest in-
formation received from the series of postal surveys is
cross-checked against a number of statistically
designed "on-the-ground"creel census programs on
the major Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
With the exception of a very few immature feeder
king salmon taken in Kachemak and Resurrection Bays
the entire salmon sport fishery in Southcentral Alaska
is conducted on adults as they approach their spawn-
'ing streams or within those streams.Therefore most
fisheries in this region are fairly brief,with anglers
moving from one fishery to another as the various
runs appear.
The high percentage of Cook Inlet sport fishing
EXHIBIT-P
YEAR
TOTAL
MAN-DAYS
EFFORT
COOK INLET
MAN-DAYS
OF EFFORT
UPPER INLET KENAI PENIN.
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
UPPER INLET KENAI PENIN.
1977
1978
1979
606,763
699,611
766,556
225,606
231,468
274,805
381,157
468,143
491,751
THREE YEAR
AVERAGE
37.2 62.8
33.1 66.9
35.9 64.1
35.4 64.6
Statewide angling effort during the last threl'
years,based on license sales,has increased approxi-
mately 3.0 percent per year.Sampling indicates that
unlicensed juveniles increase the total number of
anglers about 25 percent over license sales.Anglers,
adult and juvenile combined,have increased on a
statewide basis from about 75,000 persons in 1961
to over 213,000 in 1979.
While it is not possible to determine exactly the
number of individual sport anglers who fished in Cook
Inlet waters,it is known that in 1979 there were
101,639 licensed and juvenile anglers who lived in
the Cook Inlet area.Assuming that in addition to the
local resident fisherman,there were both visiting and
non-resident anglers utilizing the Cook Inlet fisheries
the total number of participants becomes much
greater.It is estimated based on the postal question-
naire data that more than 125,000 licensed and
juvenile anglers currently utilize the Cook Inlet sport
fisheries.
2.4.3.2 Catch Analysis
The total catch of salmon within Cook Inlet has
been assessed since 1977 by the aforementioned
which occurs on the Kenai Peninsula appears to be
maintaining itself and is undoubtedly due to (1)the
availability of large king,sockeye and coho salmon
stocks in a generally healthy condition which provide
at least acceptable catch rates and (2)good access to
those waters having king,sockeye and coho salmon
stocks.
In Upper Cook Inlet access to waters west of the
Susitna River is restricted to riverboat or light aircraft.
Angling effort,as a result,has not grown as rapidly as
in other areas.In addition Upper Cook Inlet king
salmon fishing was only reopened to sport fishing in
1979 following a five-year closure.While sport catch
rate for coho salmon has improved in the last two to
three years,it was considered unsatisfactory for
many years prior to the recent improvement.
Relatively few anglers have boats of sufficient
size to handle rough marine waters.Additionally
launching and berthing facilities at the most popular
marine bay (Kachemak)are already crowded.
Another marine fishery for salmon is the king
salmon troll fishery conducted along the Kenai Penin-
sula beaches south of Deep Creek.Effort in this
ESTIMATED SPORT FISH CATCH EXHIBIT-Q
YEAR KING COHO SOCKEYE PINK CHUM TOTAL
1977 16,210 51,907 82,363 45,484 2,287 198,251
1978 17,856 65,230 105,532 105,446 18,419 312,482
1979 25,853 64,039 63,731 25,696 5,826 185,145
1980 16,806 96,032 92,673 105,595 6,154 317,260
30
fishery has grown rapidly,from 5,000 mandays in
1974 to 22,100 in 1979;but it has shown signifi-
cant fluctuations in angler effort due to inclement
periods and relative availability of fish stocks.In con-
trast to most marine fisheries,the Deep Creek troll
fishery takes place within 100-200 yards of the
beach and in relatively small boats.Therefore,
weather dictates to a large extent the angler effort
directed to this fishery.
River fisheries on the other hand have increased
far more rapidly.For example,the Kenai River king
salmon fishery has increased from 23,600 man-days
in 1974 to 98,600 man-days in 1979.
2.4.3.3 Economic Assessment
Several types of small commercial enterprises
function in direct support of the recreational fishery
and thereby indirectly generate revenue ultimately at-
tributable to the presence of the salmon.In addition to
tackle and provision stores,there are guiding services
which may employ aircraft or boats and following a
successful venture there are taxidermists.Thus the
economic web that spins out from this fishery is quite
extensive and complex;and while no one portion of it
may be large,its overall impact is significant.
At least two studies have attempted to develop
an economic description of the sport fishery in Alas-
ka'and although both provide specific informationab~ut Cook Inlet,they date back to the early 1970's.
ADF&G,however,is now in the process of developing
some new data from studies on the Kenai and
Russian Rivers in the summers of 1981 and 1982.
A masters thesis presented at the University of
Alaska in 1974 focussed on the economics of the
salmon sport fishery in Cook Inlet and Resurrection
Bay9.The data year for the study was 1972,and th~
findings were expressed in 1972 dollars.ADF&G estI-
mates that approximately 76,000 total anglers used
the Cook Inlet area in that year.The study addresses
expenditures on a per party per trip basis.It should be
noted that while most of the major sport fisheries in
the area were included in this study,the coho salmon
fishery at Anchor Point and in the Matanuska-Susitna
west area were not included nor were numerous smal-
ler fisheries.On the average the study found that
there was a total expenditure of $121.22 per party
per trip,and that the total gross sales associated wit~
this fishery was approximately $1,031,000.An addI-
tional $460,000 was calculated as being the income
generated from this economic activity.The author
estimated that an additional several hundred thousand
dollars in gross sales might be associated with the
smaller fisheries not included in the study.
A second study was done on a statewide basis
on the 1 973 sport fisheries for all species of fishs.It
indicated that the combined catch of the five salmon
species comprised about 614,000 or about 16 per-
cent of the catch of all fish species.It is estimated
that approximately 44 percent of the total effort was
expended in the Cook Inlet area or about 641,000
man-days of effort.Unlike the previously mentioned
study,this one expressed its findings in terms of ex-
penditures per fish caught ($13.90)and expenditures
per fisherman ($315.51).ADF&G estimates of the
number of fishermen harvesting in the Cook Inlet area
in 1973 are approximately 78,000.
31
Although the results from the studies that a~e
now underway will provide the best update of thiS
dated information,it is clear that the sport fishery in
Cook inlet,and particularly that portion directed at
salmon is a significant economic factor in the region.
2.4.4 Commercial Fishery
2.4.4.1 Introduction 'II '."
The commercial aspects of the salmon fishery In
Cook Inlet were evident at least as early as 1787
when the Russians were trading king salmon to.the
English for Hawaiian produce 10 •The records show
that by the 1880's a consistent effort to gather com-
mercial catch data was underway and was beginning
to provide information on sockeye,coho,and king
salmon.
In the 1890's commercial catch data on pink
salmon began to be recorded.
During the 1910's all streams on the Kenai Penin-
sula were closed to commercial fishing (1912),and in
1 91 6 the commercial fishing season ran from May 27
through August 27.
In the early 1920's (1924)commercial fishing
was prohibited from 6 p.m.Friday nights to 6 a.m.
Monday mornings.At the end of this decade a sanc-
tuary from commercial fishing was established around
the mouths of the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers.
In 1942 the record catch of coho salmon was
established at 644,823 fish.In 1946 several index
stations were established to count salmon escape-
ment.In 1947 a new gear type entered the commer-
cial fishery in Cook Inlet,the drift gill net.
In 1951 the record king salmon commercial catch
was taken and totalled 187,513 fish.In 1953 fishing
time was drastically reduced,and in 1956 subsis-
tence fishing was banned in the rivers of the Kenai
Peninsula.At the end of the decade (1958)fish traps
were prohibited as a means of commercial fishing in
the Inlet.In 1959 Alaska was granted statehood sta-
tus,and administration of the resources began to pass
from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
In 1962 the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet
experienced both the record catch of even-year pink
salmon and the record total salmon catch,4,960,030
and 7,661,051,respectively.Two years later in
1964 the record catch of chum salmon was set at
1,402,419.By 1968 monitoring efforts were becom-
ing more refined with the advent of sonar counters,
and total sockeye salmon escapement data were
obtained for the Kenai and Kasilof stocks.
During the 1970's additional controls on the
commercial fishery came into existence.In 1971
F.R.E.D.was established,and in the following year
the Commercial Fish Entry Commission was formed to
oversee the limited entry permit system which went
into effect in 1973.In 1974 the Upper and Lower
Cook Inlet Management Areas were established by
ADF&G.Total sockeye salmon escapement data for
the Susitna stock were obtained.In 1978 the com-
mercial fishery experienced the record catch of sock-.
eye salmon (2,769,751),and in the following year
the record catch of odd-year pink salmon
(3,073,988).
2.4.4.2 Regulations
There are several layers of regulation that govern
COMMERCIAL GEAR AREAS EXHIBIT-R
,,---,
~,t ~\..../a '....J
• • •••SET GILL NETS
DRIFT GILL NETS
PURSE SEINES
32
the fishing in Cook Inlet,and they essentially cover all
aspects from who can fish and with what gear to
when and where they can fish.
Permits to fish commercially in Cook Inlet must
be secured through the Commercial Fish Entry Com-
mission.The numbers of permits issued since the
inception of the Commission in 1972 has varied from
approximately 1,150 to 1,428,the most recent total.
Those permits were distributed among the three com-
mercial gear groups as follows,drift gill net 597,set
gill net 747,and seine 84 11 •There is no reason to
anticipate a large fluctuation in these numbers in the
immediate future even though transfer of ownership
of the existing permits is fairly common.
Some gear groups are excluded from fishing in
certain districts,and specifications are set on the gear
which can be used.In the case of set nets certain
beaches within a district that is open to them may be
restricted (Exhibit R).
Although the times of openings are generally set,
special openings can be granted in specific areas and
emergency closures can be invoked on short notice at
the discretion of the responsible biologist.
2.4.4.3 Drift Gill Net Fishery
The drift fishery is the most geographically con-
fined of the three .commercial gear groups,since it is
allowed only in the Central District.Despite this fact
and the fact that it is not the largest of the gear
groups,it consistently registers catches that put it at
or near the top in any year when compared to the
other two gear groups.
Although the total catch for the gear group in any
year is large,the range of catches by permit within
that group is also very wide.In the years 1975
through 1978 the median catch ranged from 1,605
to 3,931 while the high catches ranged from 9,053
to 29.718.
Sockeye,chum and pink salmon make up the
major portion of the catch of the drift fleet,and this
fishery has the highest component of non-resident
fishermen with approximately 30 percent.An average
of two people man each drift boat.
2.4.4.4 Set Gill Net Fishery
Set gill nets are present the length of the Inlet
with the southernmost sites occuring on the south
side of Kachemak Bay.However,because of the
nature of their fishing operation many are confined to
the beaches and nearshore areas and must have a site
from which to fish.In the Upper Inlet it is possible to
set net fish without a beach site,if the net can be
secured.The bulk of the set net fishing is conducted
in the Upper Cook Inlet Management Area on both the
east and west sides of the Inlet.It is the largest of the
three gear groups and experiences catches that are
large and in any year may be surpassed only by the
drift fleet.
Within the group there is even wider separation
between the catches of the individual permits than
was the case in the drift fleet.For the years 1975
through 1978 the median catch ranged from 957 to
1,605 while the high catches ranged from 11,578 to
29,718.Inlet-wide sockeye salmon are the largest
component of the set net catch with pink salmon
usually occupying second place and occassionally
yielding it to chums,but there is wide local variation.
33
It should be noted that set nets make the highest har-
vest of coho and king salmon of the three groups.An
average of 2.5 people man each set net site,and only
6 percent of the set netters are non-residents.
2.4.4.5 Seine Fishery
The seine fleet fishes only in the Lower Cook Inlet
Management.Area and Chinitna Bay of the region
covered by the.Plan.It is the·smallest of the three
gear groups,but it is the most mobile and has the
capacity to fish other waters outside the region in
years when fishing conditions are not favorable.
In terms of size of catch the seine fleet experi-
ences the largest variation.For the years 1975
through 1978 the median catch ranged from 1,146
to 13,016 while the high catch ranged from 18,125
to 79,830.
Pink salmon clearly make up the largest portion of
the seine catch,and in the years 1977 through 1979
the percentage of pinks in the catch ranged from 70
percent to 91 percent.An average of 3.5 people man
each s!3ine boat,and essentially all of the seine permit
holders are residents.
2.4.4.6 Harvest Summary
Exhibit S depicts the high consecutive year aver-
ages for the history of the Cook Inlet commercial
fishery by species.
Because the length of time selected for these
averages can influence both the amount of the aver-
age and the time period that is identified,a range of
long-term periods has been shown.
Because a two-year period is the minimum time
necessary to catch both the high and low years of the
pink cycle,increments of two years were selected as
the 32, 30,28, 26, 24,22,and 20-year averages
were calculated.
The exhibit also shows the highest three single
years on record for each species,and where they oc-
cur in relation to the long-term averages.
Of interest is the fact that the long-term high
consecutive year averages for sockeye,coho and king
salmon all occur essentially coincidentally between
the years 1925 and 1956,while the corresponding
high averages for the pink and chum salmon occur to-
gether between the years 1949 and 1980.
2.4.4.7 Economic Catch Analysis
The price paid to fishermen for their catch (ex-
vessel price)varies by species and from year-to-year
ahd as a result of causes over which the fisherman
has no control (Exhibit T)13.
The trend of prices per pound of fish was deci-
dedly upward during the decade of the 1970's.
Sockeye salmon are the most abundant of the
higher value per pound species.The value of the fish-
eries fluctuates more than the catch level in numbers
of fish.This is because pink and sockeye salmon
usually alternate as the largest contributor to catch
levels,but their prices per pound and total weight dif-
ferences affect the value to the fisherman.
The processing capacity in the Cook Inlet area
includes an expanding freezing capacity.Larger
amounts of both herring and salmon from other areas
are being brought to the Inlet for freezing and thereby
adding to the basic economy.This factor will probably
continue to increase with participation in the industry
=
RECORD LONG-TERM COMMERCIAL CATCHES EXHIBIT-S
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975
SOCKEYE 32 yrs ,I I I I I 010 II I I I I CD I
30 yrs p I I I I ~I I I I I I28yrs
26 yrs I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
24 yrs
I I II I I I q I I I I I I22yrs
20 yrs I II I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
COHO I-;-CD CD-(1)IIIIIII I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I I I I I
KING
1 :::
CD-+-CD CD:~I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I l I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I III
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
PINK I I
CD-0 0~I I I I I I I I I
I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I f I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
CHUM I I I I I I I ICD I CDI I 10--{
I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I'I I I I I III
I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
TOTAL ,I CD-(1)-;---;CDIII!I I I I I I I I I
,I I I I I I I I I II I I I
I I
CD =highest year I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
(1)=2nd highest year I I I I I'I I I I I I I ICD=3rd highest year I I.""
34
by smaller operators as indicated by increased num-
bers of requests for permits to operate as processors
received by ADF&G.
There is no question that the money that comes
to and circulates throughout the Cook Inlet region as a
direct result of salmon-related industry is significant
to the economy of the area.The ex-vessel prices paid
to Upper Cook Inlet fishermen alone in the years
1975 through 1979 totaled over 83 million dollars
and ranged from 6 to 28 million in individual years.It
should be kept in mind that this is the direct payment
to the fishermen and does not include the additional
multiplier effect.
2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE PLAN
The Plan must address a very valuable resource in
the context of a complex natural and human environ-
EX-VESSEL PRICES
ment.The mixed-stock fishery that exists in Cook
Inlet would be difficult to manage effectively even
with full understanding of all of the factors that con-
stitute variables in this equation.That understanding
is still being developed.
Despite the variety of approaches to developing a
description of the total economic impact of the
salmon fisheries'in Cook Inlet,there is a consistent
indication that the economy benefits in a substantial
fashion from a productive salmon resource.
The Plan must allow for the acquisition of new in-
formation at the same time that the harvest of the
resource is being carried out.The following chapters
will develop goals,objectives and strategies to lead to
a larger salmon resource that is based on the full po-
tential of the Inlet and that can be subjected to a
greater harvest without jeopardizing its continuity.
EXHIBIT-T
SOCKEYE CHUM PINK COHO KING
1971 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.37
1972 0.34 0.20 0.19 0.27 0.47
1973 0.65 0.42 0.30 0.50 0.62
1974 0.91 0.53 0.46 0.66 0.88
1975 0.63 0.41 0.35 0.54 0.54
1976 0.76 0.54 0.37 0.61 0.92
1977 0.86 0.52 0.38 0.66 1.12
1978 1.35 0.80 0.34 0.85 1.00
1979 1.39 0.83 0.37 0.95 1.61
1980 0.89 0.54 0.39 0.69 1.30
•Average Per Pound Prices
35
CHAPTER 3
3.0
STOCK STATUS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the overall structure of the Plan it is very signif-
icant to identify or "freeze"a point in time which
represents the present and against which the year
2000 can be measured as the future.Both a single
year and a long-term average introduce some distor-
tion,and so a fairly brief period (1971 through 1980)
has been selected as both current enough to be useful
and long enough in duration to cover five two-year
cycles of pinks,and at least one full cycle of each of
the other four species.
-For all practical purposes the present condition in
Cook Inlet concerns only wild stocks.Although hatch-
eries have been in existence in the Inlet for about the
last five years,their contribution has not yet been suf-
ficient to consider it as a significant component of the
catches.The Plan will show supplemental production
in many forms playing an increasing role in the future
salmon resource base.
The amount of resource data available is sizeable
and the scope of this plan does not warrant its dupli-
cation here.The following sections will present
selectively the points from the life histories and stock
status of the five species of salmon which are perti-
nent for planning purposes.
This section should present a perspective on the
salmon resource that will allow assessment of the
goals and objectives of the Plan,not a complete
natural history of Pacific salmon.
3.2 STATUS OF WILD STOCK
To discuss the status of the wild salmon stocks
this section will explore the methods for determining
wild stock status,the historical trends in salmon
stocks in Cook Inlet,and will conclude with a species-
by-species examination.
3.2.1 Methods for Determining
Wild Stock Status
Several different sets of data contribute to as-
sessment of the wild stock status.However,essen-
tially all consolidated sources originate with the
offices of ADF&G.Although secondary sources may
make interpretive manipulations of these data as is
done in this Plan,the primary information still rests
with ADF&G.
3.2.1.1 Commercial Harvest Reports
Although it has not been a consistent method of
data collection,the most long-term records exist for
the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet.Data from the
late 1800's are presented in terms of pack and do not
necessarily cover the same fishing area from one year
to the next.In more recent years,particularly with the
advent of fish tickets and limited entry,the count of
37
commercially caught salmon has become more accur-
ate and is expressed in numbers of fish rather than
exclusively in poundage.
These figures alone,however,present only part
of the information and cannot be used without under-
standing the various factors which influence them.
Examples of non-run size factors that are at work in
any given year include increases or decreases in the
number of participants in the fishery,the efficiency of
the gear being fished,the number of openings,and
the weather during the open periods.
Because the commercial catch is regularly such a
large part of the total catch (approximately 95 per-
cent),it is perhaps,the best number with which to
begin constructing what the strength of the stocks
are in any given period.
3.2.1.2 Sport Fish Harvest Reports
Of the three major user groups the sport fisher-
men take the second largest harvest of Cook Inlet
salmon.During the fishing season there are regular
creel census programs that begin to define the catch
being exacted by the sport fishermen.These data are
further refined by a mail questionnaire that solicits
data on effort extended,catch and species prefer-
ence.The Sport Fish Division annually publishes a
statewide harvest report.
3.2.1.3 Subsistence Harvest Reports
The reports on subsistence harvests are,perhaps,
the most sporadic of the three major user groups.
However,because of the very small portion of the
total catch that is clearly attributed to this group,it
has relatively little impact on the construction of an
overall stock status picture.As has been indicated the
subsistence use has been the subject of much discus-
sion and definition.Although there is a great deal of
anecdotal reference to subsistence fishing,useful
data only dates to the 1960's.In recent years a spe-
cial subsistence office within ADF&G has served as
the focal point for data concerning the subsistence
fishery.
3.2.1.4 Escapement Monitoring
Escapement monitoring,particularly on the major
sockeye systems,adds another piece of valuable in-
formation to the overall picture of stock strength.
When coupled with data about the harvest,these data
can bring the analysis another step closer to assess-
ment of the total run strength.In addition because it ~
is system specific,it provides the best data on indi-XJl
vidual component stocks and their relative strengths.\~
3.2.1.5 Management Reports
The annual management reports that are prepared ri4,)
by both the Upper and Lower Cook Inlet Management \~
Areas for the Board of Fisheries are regular syntheses
of the data which have been outlined above.In addi-
tion to the most recent information these reports
regularly present a brief historical context in which
the current information can be assessed.
3.2.1.6 Stock Status Reports
Finally ADF&G has issued stock status reports
-------_.-
dealing with some or all of the Cook Inlet salmon
stocks.The most comprehensive of these comes out
of a statewide effort being conducted through the
ADF&G office in Anchorage.These reports are being
prepared by one individual and on a common format
so that they form an integrated and total package.
The Cook Inlet portion of this effort was completed in
\.the summer of 1 981 .
3.2.2 Historical Trends
Historically over the 88 years that the salmon
fishery has been documented in Cook Inlet annual
commercial salmon harvests have averaged 2.8 mil-
lion fish.It should be noted that pink salmon were
only sporadically a part of this tally until 1906 and
chum salmon did not become a component of record
until 1910 H •
Sockeye salmon dominate the 88-year commer-
cial harvest with an average annual catch of 1.2 mil-
lion (42 %).The contributions of other species are:
pinks,976,000 (35%);chums,392,000 (13%);co-
ho,218,000 (8%);and kings,48,000 (2%).In the
22 years since statehood (1 959 -1 9801,salmon pro-
duction in Cook Inlet has climbed from an average
catch of 2.8 million to 3.8 million.The even year
average is 4.7 million,and the odd year average is
2.8 million.
From a statewide perspective,Cook Inlet salmon
average 7.5 percent of the annual Alaska production
(1 960-1 980).On a species basis,chum and coho
each account tor 12 percent of the State's produc-
tip.n~_~c~'{.e,-lL..p_er.cen.t_pink,5 percent;and king
salmon,2 percent.
3.2.3 Sockeye Salmon
3.2.3_1 Life History
Sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet are generally con-
sidered to be five years old at spawning,but a signifi-
cant component of four-year-old fish occurs in most
years.The sockeye salmon are also considered to be
lake-rearing fish,but spawning sockeyes have been
observed in systems that have no lakes.Generally,
they will spawn in the streams that are tributaries of a
lake and upon emergence will spend one to two
months in the stream before moving into the lake.
They will spend one or more years In the lake before
migrating to sea.In some instances sockeye salmon
may become landlocked precluding the marine portion
of their development,and in this case,they are called
kokanee salmon.The IHN virus is reasonably common
among wild stocks;and although it can be devastating
in hatchery stocks,its toll on wild stocks is not clear.
The return rate for natural spawning sockeyes i
generally considered fo be 4 ad lts to 1 spawner The
returning adults which are harvested average between
6 and 7 pounds per fish.They have been called the
"money fish"because they have historically brought
the highest per pound price.
3.2.3.2 Historical Production
The abundance of sockeye salmon as measured
by the size of the commercial fishery catch has varied
substantially.The single highest catch of record was
2,769,751 (1 978).The highest long-term a.l(erage
catch was for the twenty-year period from 1932
through 1951 when the commercial catch annually
averaged 1,803,935.The average annual catch in
the twenty-two years since statehood has been
38
1,176,550,but the median catch during that same
period was only 990,709.
For the period identified as the"present"(1971
through 198.0)the average annual catch has been
1~282,931,while the median catch for the same per-
iod is 968,572.This suggests the sockeye fishery in
Cook Inlet is in a period of annual yield above the re-
cent long-term average,but still below this historic
long-term average.
Recent run strengths have been estimated in ex-
cess of 3.5 million fiSh.The escapement counts for
sockeye have been estimated at between 800,000
and 900,000.
Follt river systems are now identified as being the
major produeers of sockeye salmon,the Kenai,Kasi-
lof,Susitna and Crescent.The Kenai an Kasilof sys-
tems account for between 50 and 75 percent of the
total -sock.eye production.This dominance of produc-
tion does not necessarily reflect an absence of po-
tential production in other systems,but rather a
situation which has resulted from past harvest or
overharvest of stocks from other systems.
3.2.4 Pink Salmon
3.2.4.1 Life History
Pink salmon are typically two years old at spawn-
ing and,therefore,have the fastest "turn around
time"of the five species of salmon present in Cook
Inlet.From a harvest perspective the most notable
feature of their life history is the regular alternating
between a dominant year and a non-dominant year
that may vary by as much as an order of magnitude.
Unlike the sockeye,the pinks produce about three
returning adults for each spawner.Those returning
adults which are harvested average about 3.5 pounds
directly into the estuarine and marine environment
upon emergence.
Like the sockeye,the pinks produce about three
returning adults for each spawner.Those returning
adults which are harvested average about 3.5 pounds
in weight.The pink salmon has been called the
"bread and butter"fish,partially making up in num-
bers for its lower per pound price and smaller size.
3.2.4.2 Historical Production
The production of pink salmon varies widely be-
tween the dominant year and the non-dominant year
as has been pointed out.In addition the history of the
pink salmon in Cook Inlet is further complicated by
periodic shifts of the dominant year from odd to even
or vice versa.Finally,the pink runs to the Lower Inlet
may be on a different dominant pattern than runs to
the Upper Inlet.Th 1.Jpper Inlet has been 011 an eveQ-
year dominant cycle since at least statehood In 1959.
The Lower Inlet was on an even-year dominant cycle
until 1970,and in 1971 it began an odd-year domi-
nant cycle which is still in effect in 1980.
The highest commercial catch of record for the
Inlet as a whole occurred in 1962 when both the Up-
per and Lower Inlet were on an even-year dominant
cycle and the total catch was 4,960,030.The 1962
catch for the Upper Inlet remains the highest ever re-
corded.However,in the Lower Inlet the largest catch
was registered in 1 979 and totalled 2,997,491.
Because of this switchover in the dominant y,ear pat-
tern in the Lower Inlet,the recent overall pink catch
for the Inlet has not shown such pronounced differ-
ences between the dominant and non-dominant years
as was previously the case.
The highest long-term average catch of pinks has
been in the twenty years from 1 961 through 1 980
when the average catch was 1.604,741.The median
catch during this period was 1,390,684.but it should
be understood that because of the dominant and non-
dominant years nine of these years saw catches of
less than 658,000.In the twenty-two years since
statehood the average annual catch has been
1,577,061.
A pre ant n 971 through 1.380)the a\l.erage n-
nual catch for the entire Inlet is 1 .4 7 2,494,while the
madt n catch for the same penod is 1,396,490.It is
clear that both values are near the long-term average
high catch.
3.2.5 Chum Salmon
3.2.5.1 life History
The chum salmon are generally considered to
have a four-year life cycle although there is a distinct
two-year cycle that describes their abundance in the
commercial catch.
Chum salmon spawn in the side channels of
larger systems particularly in areas where there are
upwelling springs.Frequently chum salmon will over-
lay the spawning areas of pink salmon.The emerging
chum fry move quite quickly into estuarine environ-
ments.
The adults -return In a ratio of approximately thr-ee
adults :to one spawner nd weigh approximately 8
pounds when they are harvested.
3.2.5.2 Historical Production
The single highest annual catch of chum salmon
in Cook Inlet occurred in 1964 when there was a
commercial harvest of 1.402.4 19.The highest long-
term average annual catch was during the twenty-four
year period between 1956 and 1979 when the yearly
commercial catch averaged 751,340.The average
annual catch in the twenty-two years since statehood
is 718,531,while the median during the same period
is 650,988.
Fo(he ptesent penod (1971-1980)the annual
average is 723,639 and the median is 673,390.
Once again these figures are near the record and
recent long-term numbers.
The Susitna River drainage and he Chinitna Bay
Streams are the most clearly Identified major chum
salmon producers.although there is strong suspicion
that the Chakachamna and Beluga River systems may
also produce large runs of chum salmon.
The Upper Inlet drift fishermen account for the
largest harvest of this species taking approximately
88 percent of the 85 percent of the total inlet chum
catch that is taken in the Upper Inlet.
3.2.6 King Salmon
3.2.6.1 life History
Of the five salmon species in Cook Inlet,the king
salmon has the longest life cycle.and it may be as
long as seven years.However,returning adults that
spawn are generally four,five or six years old.They
typically spend one year in freshwater and then up to
four years in saltwater.About three adults return in
succeeding y'ears for every spawner in the current
year.
Although the king salmon occurs in a number of
39
locations in the Pacific.those returning to Cook Inlet
are the largest.The average weight of those caught
throughout the Inlet is over 22 pounds,but the Kenai
River kiAgs average about 30 pounds.Annually a few
specimens over 80 pou,nds are caught.
3.2.6.2 Historical Production
The highest annual commercial catch of king
salmon occurred in 1951 with the harvest of
187,513.The highest long-term average catch was
in the twenty-year period between 1934 and 1953
when the annual harvest averaged 92,822.The
average annual catch in the twenty-two years since
statehood has been 1 3.522 with the median catch
during the same period being 11,890.
At th resen (1-9 Z 1 1 9-8Q the nn atch-is
averagj:n 12:,,636,w'h he medjan rlurin,g the same
peM eiR.Q 13,876.
The Susitna drainage accounts for the majority of
Cook Inlet king salmon with the Kenai,Kasilof,Ninil-
chik and Anchor Rivers,Deep Creek and several west-
side streams providing additional runs.Escapement in
the most recent years has been deemed to be good
with perhaps as many as 1 25,000 kings escaping
into the Susitna system in 1 977.
3.2.7 Coho Salmon
3.2.7.1 Life History
Most coho salmon in Cook Inlet spend the first
two years of life in freshwater and migrate to sea in
the Spring of the second year.One and a half addi-
tional years are spent at sea before they return in the
late Summer/Fall of the third year or in the fourth year
as adult spawners.The harvested adults average
about 6.5 pounds.Those reaching the spawning
areas may spend several weeks in freshwater before
spawning in the tributaries.
The coho salmon appear to have a strong "pio-
neering"instinct that will cause them to readily occu-
py newly available spawning habitat.That adaptability
is present in the juvenile fish that will rear under many
varied circumstances.Occasionally landlocked popula-
tions of coho develop.
Preliminary data suggest there is an identifiable
size difference associated with the various runs or
stocks of coho salmon which may provide a means
for stock separation.Selected sampling shows the
average weight of Knik Arm and Susitna River coho
salmon to be 5.8 and 5.6 pounds per fish,respec-
tively.The Swanson River cohoes average 6.5
pounds each,while the August Kenai River cohoes
average 7.9 pounds.Coho salmon from the lower pe-
ninsula streams (Anchor River,Deep Creek,etc.)
average 8.2 pounds,but the September Kenai River
cohoes are the largest with an average weight of
10.2 pounds 's ,
3.2.7.2 Historical Production
The highest one-year commercial catch of coho
salmon was 1942 when 644,823 were harvested.
The highest long-term annual average was for the
twenty-two years between 1927 and 1948 when the
annual harvest averaged 345,878.The average
annual catch in the twenty-two years since statehood
has been 225,693.
The present average a nual catch 1971 - 9 aU)
is 193,256 ana the median is 209,2BO.
Majm kn WA population of coho salman are
found in the u it a ainage,t e Kenai Rhler,'tbe
LQwer rnlet 1lnd on e west '(fa of he In et.Addi-
tionally there are coho salmon in Resurrection Bay.
3.2.8 Summary
There are many ways in which this type of infor-
mation can be viewed to construct a description of
the status of the wild stocks.Which sets of data are
used and the qualifying information that is considered
in conjunction with that data will markedly alter the
conclusions which are drawn.Exhibit U presents
catch data from the commercial fishery in several dif-
ferent forms representing the most commonly dis-
cussed categories of catch data.
The qualifications to keep in mind during any
interpretation are that the commercial fishery in Cook
Inlet is now in a period of relative stability as far as
the number of participants is concerned.Additionally,
the gear has become noticeably more efficient in re-
cent years.This gear efficiency may in part offset the
decreasing amount of time available to the commer-
cial fishermen.
It should be noted that the annual sport fish catch
of all five species of salmon would add about
250,000 to these commercial catches.The corre-
sponding subsistence catch under varying criteria for
subsistence fishing has averaged about 6,000 fish.
3.3 STATUS OF
SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION
3.3.1 Introduction
It has been clear for some time that the demands
on the salmon resource have been increasing and that
the vagaries of the exclusively natural salmon re-
source can result in economic instability for fishermen
HISTO:RIC CATCH PERSPECTIVES
and individuals in support industries,loss of recrea-
tion opportunities,and subsistence hardship.This
result was deemed to be undesirable,and several of-
ficial actions were taken to give "assistance"to the
resource.The most notable of these were the estab-
lishment of the F.R.E.D.Division of ADF&G and the
aquaculture associations.
In the following sections there will be discussion
of the su pplemental production techniques that are
viewed as useful at one or more locations in Cook In-
let and descriptions of the contributions to the overall
stock strength that are now being made through sup-
plemental production.
3.3.2 Methods of Supplemental Production
3.3.2.1 Hatchery
Although hatcheries are the most expen5;ve
means of supplemental salmon production,they pro-
vide for greater control than any other means of pro-
duction in the Cook Inlet system.Five such facilities
are now in operation in the Inlet,and two more are in
the advanced stages of planning.Those in operation
are located at Big Lake,Fort Richardson Army Base,
Elmendorf Air Force Base,Kasilof and Tutka Bay.The
Eklutna Hatchery is in the final permitting phase,and
the Trail Lakes Hatchery is under construction.All of
the above facilities with the exception of Eklutna are
or will be owned and operated by the State of Alaska
through its F.R.E.D.Division,while the Eklutna facility
will be owned and operated as a private non-profit
hatchery by the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association.
There is generally a linear relationship between
the cost of hatchery fish and the life stage at which
the hatchery releases the fish.More specifically,the
longer the hatchery holds the fish the more money it
EXHI'srT..U
f
I
SOCKEYE PINK CHUM COHO kiNG T01iA~
2,778.891 4.960.030 1,402,419 644,823 187,513 7.661,051
(19781 (1962)(1964)119421 119511 (1962)
1,641,385 1,531.814 695.596 329.149 85.521 3,830.082
(1925·1954)11951·19801 11950·19791 11925·19541 1192619551 11939·196BI
1.866.899 1-996.999 709,218 374.286 86.650 4.439.220
1.803.935 1,604,741 751,340 345.878 92,822 3,860,857 I
20 YEARS 20 YEARS 24 YEARS 22 YEARS 20 YEARS 20 VEARS I)11932·19511 11961·19801 l1956·19 741 (1927-19481 11934·1953)(1949·19681
2,046.410 2.391,488 786,554 409.314 96,981 4,930.909
20 YEARS 20 YEARS 24 YEARS 22 YEARS 20 YEARS 20 YEARS
1.176,550 1.560,746 718,531 225,693 13,522 3,715,485
1.282,931 1.472.494 723,639 193,256 12.636 3,684.954
HIGHEST SINGLE YEAR
COMMERCIAL CATCH
HIGHEST 30 CONSECUTIVE
YEARS OF COMMERCIAL
CATCH (ANNUAL AVERAGEI
HIGHEST 30 NON·CONSECUTIVE
YEARS OF COMMERCIAL CATCH
IANNUAL AVERAGE)
HIGHEST CONSECUTIVE YE.AR
LONG TERM COMMERCIAL CATCH
32,30.28. 26. 24.22,OR 20 YEARS
IANNUAL AVERAGEI
HIGHEST NON·CONSECUTIVE
YEAR LONG TERM CATCH -
COMPARABLE TO PREVIOUS
CATEGORY IANNUAL AVERAGE)
ANNUAL AVERAGE CATCH FORnYEARSSINCESTATEHOOO
{1959·19801
CONDITION OEseRIBW AS THE
"'PRESENT"IN THE PLAN -
ANNUAL COMMERCIAL CATCH
AVERAGE FOR 1971·1980
1980 COMMERCIAL CATCH 1.650,752 2,765.882
40
461.931 296,276 12.898 5.187,739
t
.~.
invests in each individual fish,however this fact is
somewhat mitigated by the improved survival which
is attained with fish that are more fully developed in a
hatchery.
3.3.2.2 Habitat Modification -Stream Clearance
Stream clearance as a means of supplementing
salmon production is at the other end of the complex-
ity spectrum from hatcheries.It has a long history as
a technique for salmon enhancement in Cook Inlet
with stream improvement on the Salmon River,Bear
Creek,and Grouse Creek recorded in 1922 and in
1930 in the Susitna,Little Susitna,and Knik Arm trib-
utaries.
Because of its simplicity,the concept is one that
is generally supported by user groups.There are,
however,some attendant risks which should be con-
sidered.Complete removal of a barrier may cause a
velocity barrier,scour downstream gravels,or elimi-
nate pooling areas in the stream.Therefore,selective
removal of a portion of the barrier sufficient to allow
passage of fish upstream without substantially alter-
ing the flow or downstream conditions is the desirable
level of effort.
The costs in terms of time and equipment are
usually relatively small.Therefore,the number of fish
to benefit can be smaller and still have the project pro-
duce a net gain of fish for the effort expended.
In the evaluation of a potential stream clearance
project assessment should be made of the unutilized
spawning or rearing habitat that will be made avail-
able,the portion of the barrier to be removed,and the
availability of a sufficient spawning population to
make use of the"new"habitat.
3.3.2.3 Habitat Modification -Fish Pass
The construction of a fish pass (fish ladder or
fishway)is the more structured and permanent form
of stream clearance habitat modification.Within the
Cook Inlet area there are two such facilities in opera-
tion,one at Ship Creek and the other at Russian River
Falls.Additionally a number of sites throughout the
Inlet have been identified as locations where this type
of habitat modification would prove beneficial.Among
the sites so designated are Scurvy Creek,the Paint
River,Big River Lakes,Coffee Creek,Ptarmigan Lake
and Port Chatham.
Much of the ultimate success of an individual fish
pass will depend on the thoroughness with which the
pre-construction analysis has been carried out.
Thought must be given to the effects on fish species
other than the salmon it is designed to benefit.Past
experience over a broad range of conditions substanti-
ates the fact that a well placed fish pass can yield a
high benefit/cost ratio.
3.3.2.4 Habitat Modification -Fertilization
Fertilization as it is being considered in the Cook
Inlet area involves the addition of nutrients to lakes
that serve as nurseries for rearing salmon,particularly
sockeye salmon.The intent of this action is to
increase the quantity of phytoplankton and subse-
quently zooplankton,the primary source of food for
the rearing salmon.Past studies have drawn a clear
and strong correlation between the availability of food
to the young salmon,'their size at outmigration,and
their survival to return as adults.
At the same time,numerous studies have shown
an immense variation in the results achieved through
this means of habitat modification.Results in any indi-
vidual case may not be extrapolated to all other cases.
Some systems have shown a negative benefit from
fertilization while others have experienced up to
twenty-fold increases in the returning adults.How-
ever,the majority of cases do show some positive
benefit.
The ADF&G hilS published "Policy and Guidelines
for Lake Fertilization"in which it outlines three stages
for this type of project.The first stage,pre-fertiliza-
tion study,calls for a detailed study of the physical,
biological and chemical status of the lake.The study
should encompass at least one full year's cycle.The
study should draw conclusions about the rate and fre-
quency of fertilizer application.The second stage is
the application of the fertilizer in one or more sessions
as prescribed by the study.The third and final stage is
the evaluation of the effort in a post-fertilization
study.The assessment of the effects of the applica-
tion must be related to the overall physical/chemical
condition of the lake,growth of juvenile salmon,and
the potential contribution of the effort to the salmon
fishery.
3.3.2.5 Habitat Modification -Spawning Channels
The construction of artificial spawning channels
is an effort to both increase and enhance the spawn-
ing environment.It permits the control of factors such
as water flow,substrate,sedimentation and predation
so that egg-to-fry survival averages are improved.
Past experience indicates that there is a strong in-
centive to explore application of this technique
because the egg-to-fry survival in streams may be 10
to 15 percent while it may increase to 30 to 80 per-
cent in spawning channels.
To implement this technique there must be a con-
trollable water source,the proper terrain and suffi-
cient salmon stock to utilize the completed project.
There has been discussion of employing such a pro-
cedure in Fourth of July Creek,but that effort has not
yet been undertaken.
3.3.2.6 Habitat Modification -Water Flow Control
This modification technique may be employed to
solve either the problem of too much water or the
problem of too little water or to alter the velocity at
which the water is presented to a given site.The de-
vices which may be employed to achieve this end are
many and vary greatly in attendant cost and difficulty
from site to site.Target locations are those in which
most other factors favoring salmon reproduction are
present,but it has been determined that either the
volume or velocity of the water is inappropriate.It
then remains to identify what the proper water condi-
tions should be and the most effective and cost-
efficient means of achieving that condition.
3.3.2.7 Habitat Modification-
Predator/Competitor Control
This technique differs somewhat from those pre-
viously discussed because it is more a modification of
the biological habitat than the physical habitat.It is
often the case that in the process of trying to improve
conditions for the salmon stocks at anyone or a
number of the different stages in their life cycles it
will be necessary to take direct action on non-salmon
species which function as either predators on the
41
-
·iiiUSE .2
young salmon or as effective competitors for food or
advantageous spawning areas.
Perhaps the most widely known use of this tech-
nique has been in situations where a lake has been
treated with rotenone to eliminate the resident fish
populations prior to the stocking of the favored sal-
mon species.This procedure was implemented in Bear
Lake for the enhancement of sockeye salmon.
3.3.2.8 Stocking -Streams
The use of a stream stocking technique,·and
there are several,may be indicated when there is
either a stream with low production levels and under-
utilized rearing habitat that is unable to rehabilitate
itself within an acceptable time frame or an area of
underutilized habitat which may serve as a natural
rearing area.Generally,either situation would require
an incubation facility.
There are at least five different approaches to im-
plementation of this technique,and they are identified
by the stage of life at which the "new"fish are
released.With artificial spawning and natural incuba-
tion green eggs can be seeded in the stream.A
second possibility with artificial spawning and partial
natural incubation is to plant eyed eggs in the stream.
The third choice is to depend on artificial spawning
and incubation and natural rearing by releasing unfed
fry into the stream.A fourth alternative depends on
artificial spawning and incubation and partial natural
rearing by releasing fed fry or fingerlings into the
stream.The fifth and final choice is to depend entirely
upon artificial spawning,incubation and rearing and
release of smolts into the stream.
This technique has been employed in some of its
variations throughout the area.Crooked Creek,Sew-
ard Lagoon and Paint River are three examples of sys-
tems which have been the subject of this practice.
3.3.2.9 Stocking -Lakes
When rearing area is a limiting factor in salmon
production,lakes can be used as natural nursery
areas.Some lakes are underutilized while others have
areas where rearing habitat is naturally void of
salmon.Generally productive lakes accessible to ana-
dromous fish have existing runs;and artificial incuba-
tion of the native stock,followed by stocking the fry
in the lake,could be used to enhance the natural runs.
It is necessary to have a suitable lake in a location
where a harvest is feasible and there is an available
broodstock source.Pre-stocking studies are required
to select suitable lakes and to ensure that stocked fry
will grow and survive to migrate to sea in sufficient
numbers.Careful determination of stocking density
and timing may be crucial to success.
Tustumena Lake has been one of the lakes sub-
jected to this procedure.
3.3.3 Supplemental Production Programs
In the following sections there will be a brief de-
scription of the supplemental production programs
that are underway in the Inlet.In Chapters 5,6 and 7
there is additional information about these programs
and projects.
At the present time,active salmon research and
enhancement programs are being conducted by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association,the U.S.Forest Service and
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.
42
The ADF&G is the most prominent agency with
regard to the overall enhancement of salmon popula-
tions in Cook Inlet.In addition to the present enhance-
ment and research programs,the Department has five
hatcheries in construction or operating in the Inlet.
The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association is cur-
rently engaged in habitat surveys,cooperative
stocking projects,smolt counts,and is in the final
permit application process for a chum salmon hatch-
ery at Eklutna.Possible future projects include lake
fertilization and spawning channels.
Private non-profit hatcheries,CIAA facilities and
ADF&G hatcheries are reviewed by the Regional Plan-
ning Team before they are sent to the Commissioner
of Fish and Game for final approval.
The other two agencies currently involved with
salmon in the Cook Inlet are the U.S.Forest Service,
which is working cooperatively with the ADF&G eval-
uating the feasibility of building fish passes on Six-
Mile River in the Turnagain Arm area and on Ptarmi-
gan Creek on the Kenai Peninsula.
The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting
salmonid research in the Kenai River and the Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge.At present,U.S.Fish and
Wildlife studies are concentrating on various aspects
of king salmon spawning behavior.
Supplemental production of sockeye salmon oc-
curs at the Kasilof hatchery and the Big Lake hatchery
and it is the major target of the Trail Lakes hatchery,
which is under construction.
Pink salmon supplemental production occurs at
the Tutka Lagoon facility.
King salmon production results from combining
efforts at the Kasilof facility (egg,smolt release)and
the Anchorage Complex facility (incubation,rearing).
Coho salmon production is,at present,limited to
the Anchorage Complex facility and Big Lake
hatchery.
The initiation of production of chum salmon at
the Tutka Hatchery is the first such effort for this spe-
cies in the Inlet.
3.3.3.1 Summary of Supplemental Production
The assignment of numbers of additional fish at-
tributable to many of the supplemental production
procedures with the exception of the hatcheries is
very difficult.However,it is safe to say that they are
making a contribution to the overall enhancement
program.As has been pointed out,the total hatchery
program for the Cook Inlet area is still in a stage of
growth where it is not producil1g what is eventually
expected from it.
Since the F.R.E.D.Division is the only one now
engaged in hatchery production,their projections of
returns from the most recent egg takes (1980)will
help to put some quantification on this effort.These
estimates are based on standard survival rates with
the adults returning over a period of years beginning
in 1982 16 •The returning adult projections are
131,139 sockeye,129,238 pink,203 chum,
56,250 coho and 10,680 king salmon.Thus,at this
point in time itis possible to identify a contribution of
at least 327,510 salmon from supplemental pro-
duction.
3.4 SUMMARY OF SALMON
PRODUCTION STATUS
The history of the salmon resource in Cook Inlet
is a long one,but its history as an intensely managed
and enhanced resource is quite short.As will be seen
throughout this document,there has been improve-
ment in the size of the runs over the last ten years
43
rr
and in particular in the last four years.This increase
has come from an intense interest in obtaining the
proper escapements,searching out opportunities to
supplemel'lt the wild stocks,implementation of the
200 mile limit and favorable weather.The present
status is one that should offer encouragement about
the progress which is possible and which is outlined
in the following chapters.
CHAPTER 4
"'-.
4.0
TARGET 2000 STATUS
4.1 CONTEXT OF TARGET 2000 STATUS
The production of more fish in Cook Inlet is con-
templated as a means of strengthening and preserving
a resource base which will subsequently be available
for harvest.That harvest will take place in order to
satisfy anyone or a combination of the following
needs;obtaining a product for subsequent sale,meet-
ing life-supporting needs directly,providing a commo-
dity for barter in exchange for other needs,or provid-
ing a recreational outlet.
To determine what future harvest levels might be,
the CIRPT examined recent patterns of the various
user groups and trends in the strength of the resource
base.Increasing harvest pressure was one of the
dominant patterns.The CIRPT recognized there was
not necessarily a connection between what the users
might want to harvest from the resource and the
ability of the Inlet to sustain the resource at that level
of harvest.
The estimate of future harvest pressure in the
sport fishery was initially developed by the area per-
sonnel from the Sport Fish Division of the ADF&G 17.It
represents their overall perception of that segment of
the total fishery and their best assessments for future
user patterns during the period covered by the Plan.
The result of that assessment was presented to the
CIAA Board of Directors who agreed to accept it as
the best available approximation of the future harvest
pressure.
The past user patterns in the commercial fishery
seems to support the contention that when more fish
are available to be caught and are harvested,that in-
creased harvest is widely distributed over the majority
of fishermen representing all three gear groups which
are active in the commercial fishery.If this assump-
tion is true,the production of more fish in the Inlet
would set up a potential harvest situation that would
be beneficial to most of the commercial fishermen.
The CIAA Board of Directors endorsed the concept
that future satisfaction with the fishery would be de-
pendent on the ability of each individual fisherman to
realize increased harvests.
The uncertainty surrounding the subsistence user
group made assessment of what its future harvest
might be very difficult.With full recognition that there
might well be annual changes in the status of this
group and the subsequent harvest attributable to it,
the CIRPT made an assessment of potential future
harvest levels.The relevance of that assessment to
prevailing conditions at any given point in the future
will have to be qualified by the relative change from
conditions in 1980.
4.2 QUALIFICATION OF THE
TARGET 2000 STATUS
Achievement of a more productive and predict-
able future in the salmon fishery of Cook Inlet)will
require identification of the relationship between what
the user groups seek from the resource and the re-
source's ability to respond to that pressure.By estab-
lishing a target status as an expression of user group
aspirations there is recognition of the first half of the
relationship (what is sought).The identification of
numerous projects and the volume of salmon they
may produce begins the definition of the second half,
capacity of the resource to respond to harvest pres-
sure as well as utilize the available habitat to the
maximal non-destructive level.
Collectively and individually user groups must
recognize there is a chance their future harvest pros-
pects as estimated here will be beyond the capacity of
the Inlet resources.However,the resource may also
be found to have harvest potential greater than the
target status.
The programs outlined in later chapters of this
Plan provide for the orderly and systematic examina-
tion of the resource potential.They also carry the
implicit assumption that as the resource base is better
understood and seen to be increasing,harvest of the
resource will be allowed to increase in a biologically
sound manner.
A key element in the relationship of user groups
to a potentially expanding resource base is the num-
ber of participants in the harvest.Entry into the sport
fishery requires only the purchase of a license which
is available to all adults for the payment of a fee.For
children under the age of sixteen even the license is
not required.In this sense it is the most permissive of
the three major user groups.
The maximum number of people who could be
participants in the subsistence fishery is directly re-
lated to the qualifications established by the Alaska
Board of Fisheries.However,what portion of those
who are eligible will actually participate is unknown;
and no effective prediction can be made until lasting
qualifications have been in place for a sufficient
length of time for an understandable pattern to
develop.
Since 1 973 entry into the commercial fishery of
Cook Inlet has been controlled and limited.There is
every reason to believe that this situation will con-
tinue,and thus the commercial fishery is the most
tightly controlled of the major user groups.It is within
the power of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commis-
sion to increase the number of permits it issues,and
this fact becomes important in the assessment of
future harvest pressure.If the premise is that a large
number of fish will result in a larger harvest for the
majority of individual commercial fishermen,then the
direction of the Plan to provide a greater number of
45
--.
...
I "I
fish can be construed as an effort to improve condi-
tions for members of this user group.However,if the
number of participants in the user group increases in
parallel with the increases in the resource base,any
effective improvement for the individual user may well
be lost.
4.3 TARGET 2000 STATUS
It became necessary to establish some target
towards which the efforts of the Plan would be di-
rected.There is no clear definition of the carrying
capacity of the Inlet.Additionally,to all but the mana-
gers,the most meaningful number is the one that de-
scribes the harvest goal for the year 2000.After con-
siderable review of historic and current trends and
levels of harvest by all user groups a target of 12.000
million salmon of all species available to harvest in the
year 2000 was adopted.This mark,which is about
50 percent higher than the best total harvest of sal-
mon ever recorded in the Inlet,is both high enough to
necessitate a more thorough understanding of the
salmon and of the Inlet and modest enough to be
46
within reach,if all identified projects proved both fea-
sible and successful.It is not feasible for the Plan to
consider what harvest policies may be in place in the
future;and so a single total harvest number for the
future target was accepted.The CIRPT's deliberations
in defining this target extended over a 2-year period
and could not be easily summarized without greatly
expanding the text of the Plan.Therefore,the inter-
ested reader is referred to minutes of CIRPT meetings
and attendant working documents for a fuller analysis
of the background information used in setting the
target.
Varying preferences for species of salmon based
on personal taste preference,size,commercial value
and other factors were recognized.However technical
and biological limitations govern the increased produc-
tion of each species of salmon.Therefore,the target
status has been identified as a total number without
reference to species composition.
The following chapter is an examination of how
this target status with its attendant escapement
reconciles with the recognized opportunities to
enhance the total run strength of salmon in Cook
Inlet.
CHAPTER 5
5.0
GAP ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
To conduct this analysis it is first necessary to
define the gap with its qualifying elements.It is then
possible to identify many of the variables which could
affect the magnitude of such a gap.Finally,considera-
tion can be given to the means of closing that gap and
the implications of that closure.
5.1.1 Definition of Gap
The CIRPT developed a definition of the present
condition in terms of total harvest,escapement and
run strength.A comprehensive list of known and de-
veloping projects was assessed,and the respective
project potentials for salmon production were quanti-
fied.The combination of that present condition and
the recognized potentials produced a projected total
harvest and escapement the year 2000.The differ-
ence between those projected numbers and the target
status for 2000 set out in Chapter 4 is called the gap.
5.1.2 Perspective on Gap
At this point in the planning process there is no
certain knowledge that the gap defined in this way
can ever be entirely closed or that it can be closed
within the twenty years under discussion.Achieve-
ment of that closure represents a long-term bench-
mark to guide examination of the potential of the Inlet
and the conditions under which that potential can be
realized.Efforts to close the gap need to be carefully
coordinated because of the interrelationships of the
salmon stocks in the Inlet and the less obvious factors
associated with anyone project aimed at increased
salmon production.
The ability of each of the five species of salmon
to contribute to closing this total gap varies.Not only
are the absolute levels of catch for the five species
widely separated now,but their respective reproduc-
tive rates are markedly different.Compounding the
perspective even more is the increase in survival and
harvest rates attributable to salmon produced by
hatcheries as compared to wild 'stocks.
Additionally the growth of one species in total
numbers may have an as yet undetermined effect on
the ability of another species to reach its potential.
Many opportunities to increase the number of
salmon above present levels and to improve the man-
agement of the fishery exist.Each of these will have
to be assessed thoroughly before it is implemented.It
also seems clear that new opportunities will present
themselves as work with the fishery becomes more
extensive.
Thus,the gap represents not only an additional
quantity of fish,but also the need for a greater depth
of data about the salmon resource and a better under-
standing of the intricacies of its mixed-stock nature.
In the last analysis,the point of trying to close
the gap is to maintain and strengthen the wild stocks
while developing the ability to produce more harvest-
able salmon on a sustained basis and in a manner that
facilitates effective management.Although harvest
policies applied to that increased resource are outside
the jurisdiction of the Regional Planning Team,it is
clearly the intent of the Plan that that resource benefit
all user groups.
5.1.3 Structure of the Analysis
The following sections develop the analysis in
four major stages.Each of the four sections is intro-
duced with a pair of exhibits made up of two charts
(one chart for the even years and one for the odd
years)similar to Exhibit V.
Exhibit V directs attention to the sections dealing
with each of the major points of the analysis.
Each pair of exhibits highlights and summarizes
the information presented in that section.The exhibits
appear in succeeding sections with the new informa-
tion for each section added.
Also appearing in each section is a second exhibit
which summarizes the projected species composition
of the harvest at that stage.
The analysis follows the headings shown in Ex-
hibit V and concludes with a section exploring the
requisite conditions and implicat,ions of complete gap
closure.
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-V
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE SECT.5.2 SECT.5.3 SECT.5.4 SECT.5.5 CHAP.4.0
FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE SECT.5.2 SECT.5.3 SECT.5.4 SECT.5.5 SECT.5.5FISH
RUN SECT.5.2 SECT.5.3 SECT.5.4 SECT.5.5 SECT.5.5STRENGTH
47
The data and calculations supporting this chapter
are found in the Appendix 6.
5.2 THE PRESENT CONDITION
To initiate this analysis it is necessary to define a
beginning point against which future actions may be
referenced.Exhibits W(1)and W(2)indicate what has
been accepted as the current condition.They also in-
clude one other piece of "present"condition,specif-
ically the target harvest status for the year 2000
which has been accepted by the CIRPT.
5.2.1 Time Frame
The CIRPT agreed to designate the ten-year
period 1971 through 1980 as the "present."It repre-
sents a long eno\.1gh period to moderate the anomalies
of anyone year and at the same time it encompasses
at least two full cycles of each of the five salmon spe-
cies being considered.Additionally,it has relevance to
the history of the salmon fishery and its management.
It is the second full decade of state management of
the resource.This fact should suggest that there had
been a full decade for the state as manager taking
over from the federal government to overcome start-
up problems and to begin to establish its own pattern
of management.It is reasonable to assume at this
time that that is the general pattern that will be in
effect during the life-span of this Plan.
To derive the necessary numbers to work with in
the analysis this ten-year period was divided into two
five-year sets,the even years and the odd years.Total
catch averages were taken in each set as were aver-
ages for the species-by-species components.
5.2.2 Data
The total catch including commercial,sport,and
subsistence user groups for the even years was 4 mil-
lion and for the odd years was 3.8 million.To calcu-
late the total escapement averages for these years the
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-W(1 )
PRESENT PROJECTED·PROJECTED TARGET
EVEN YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS.STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 4,078,000 12,000,000
FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,770.000FISH
RUN 5,848,000STRENGTH
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-W(2)
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
ODD YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 3,810,000 12,000.000
FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,720,000FISH
RUN 5,530,000STRENGTH
HARVEST COMPOSITION-PRESENT
Even Years
EXHIBIT-X
Odd Years
Sockeye
Pink
Chum
Coho
King
1,621,000
1,577,000
561,000
289,000
30,000
4,078,000
48
1,119,000
1,513,000
902,000
243,000
33,000
3,810,000
only distinction by species that was made was to
assume that sockeye salmon return at a per spawner
rate of 4:1 while all other species were assumed to
have a comparable rate of 3:1.During the present
period it was assumed that all fish were natural
stocks.The hatcheries which are now in operation are
at less than total capacity and have been operative for
considerably less than the full ten years.
The species composition in the present condition
is shown in Exhibit X.
5.3 PROJECTED 1990 STATUS
The first benchmark that the CIRPT recognized
was the halfway point in the Plan,the year 1990.
Progress is expected by that time across a broad
front.There will be increased natural production and
significant supplemental production.Additionally,
there will be refined management techniques and a
greater understanding of the relationship between the
Cook Inlet ecosystem and the salmon which occupy
niches within that system.Exhibits Y(1)and Y(2)dis-
play what the CIRPT felt was possible to achieve
within this short-term period if all the planned projects
and management efforts were successful.
5.3.1 Identified Activities
It is expected that expansion and improvement of
such things as test fishing and stock separation will
noticeably facilitate the management of the fishery by
1990.Additionally,appropriate escapements during
the ten-year period will bolster the overall run
strength.Approximately 4.7 million of the harvest
and 6.8 million of the production will come from
natural stocks in the even years.In the odd years,the
comparable numbers are 3.9 million and 5.6 million.
At least three major types of supplemental pro-
duction and several individual site specific projects
will contribute additional salmon to the harvest and,
therefore,to the run by 1990.
Those hatcheries which are now in existence,in
construction,or in the permitting process will be con-
tributing in an increasing fashion during this ten-year
period.Approximately 1.9 million additional salmon of
all species may De anticipated in the runs from these
sources.
Lake fertilization is expected to begin and to con-
tribute to the increasing salmon resource base.
Development projects such as the transplants into
Scurvy Creek and Paint River with attendant modifica-
tions such as fish passes will also begin to produce
noticeable returns in the overall run.
In addition,throughout this period,it is expected
that reconnaissance and research work will expose .
still further potential improvement opportunities which
will have to be evaluated as they occur and imple-
mented as assessments of them warrant.
5.3.2 Character of the 1990 Status
As projected here,the total condition of the sal-
mon fishery in 1990 will exhibit several differences
from the present.It will almost certainly be a fishery
that is more dependent on direct and indirect human
manipulation for its maintenance and stability.For
that reason also,it will be more subject to socio-
economic pressures.
The projected species composition of the fish
available to be harvested by 1990 is shown in Exhibit
Z.
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-Y(1)
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
EVEN YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000·
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 4,078,000 6.892.000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,770,000 2.984.000FISH
RUN 5,848,000 9.876.000STRENGTH
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-Y(2)
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
ODD YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 3.810,000 6.092,000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,720,000 2.584.000FISH
RUN 5.530,000 8.676,000STRENGTH
49
5.4 PROJECTED 2000 STATUS
The year 2000 represents the final benchmark for
this Plan.For the second decade (1991 through
2000)the patterns of activity that were highlighted
during the previous decade are expected to continue.
Once again,based on the premise that the projects
which have been identified will all be successful,the
CIRPT could in the long-term envision attaining the
levels of production and harvest shown in Exhibits
AA(l)and AA(2).
5.4.1 Identified Activities
The key distinction to be made about enhance-
ment activities during this period is that they will be
based on a broader and stronger information base
than was previously available.It is also assumed that
this data base will point to other opportunities which
cannot be identified at this time.
It is also worthy of note that all of the hatcheries
which are now comtemplated or in existence are
planned to be in full operation during most of this
decade.
At this point,natural stocks will be contributing
about 6.0 million to the harvest and about 8.7 'million
to the total run in the even years.In the odd years the
comparable numbers are 5.0 million and 6.4 million.
5.4.2 Character of the 2000 Status
The work that is envisioned during this twenty-
year period suggests that in 2000 the base of the
salmon resource will be more diversified and more
thoroughly distributed throughout the Inlet.There will
be more natural and supplemental systems in effect.
The contribution of more of the smaller systems in the
Inlet drainage will be known.Management of the fish-
ery will be more tuned to the eccentricities of the
Cook Inlet system and the resource harvest which is
conducted there.All of this suggests a more predict-
able condition which is less vulnerable to any single
damaging event.
PROJECTED HARVEST COMPOSITION -1990
Even Years
EXHIBIT-Z
Odd Years
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-AA(1)
PRESENT PRO.IECTED PROJECTED TARGET
EVEN YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 4,078,000 6,892,000 10.091.000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVEST ABLE 1,770,000 2,984,000 4.113.000FISH
RUN 5,848,000 9,876,000 14,204,000STRENGTH
:'I'
Sockeye
Pink
Chum
Coho
King
2,120,000
3,292,000
851,000
547,000
82,000
6,892,000
2,120,000
2,492,000
851,000
547,000
82,000
6,092,000
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-AA(2)
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
ODD YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 3,810,000 6,092,000 9.091,000 12,000,000FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,720,000 2,584,000 3,613.000FISH'"
RUN 5,530,000 8,676,000 1'2,704.000STRENGTH
50
The projected composition of the harvest at that
time is shown in Exhibit BB.
5.5 RESIDUAL GAP
Comparison of the projected 2000 status with
the target 2000 status developed in Chapter 4 re-
veals that there is in fact a residual gap between the
two harvest numbers.Using a basic per spawner
return rate of 3:1 it is possible to calculate a support-
ing escapement for that difference in harvest.Combi-
nation of that escapement with the target 12.000
million harvest from Chapter 4 produces a total run
strength necessary to support the target 2000 status
harvest.Exhibits CC(1)andCC(2)present these num-
bers and thereby complete the last stage of the gap
analysis.
The dimensions of the residual gap may be
altered significantly depending on the nature of the
projects found to apply against it.If some of those
projects contributing to its closure allow a higher rate
of harvest than that generally possible with wild
stocks in a mixed stock fishery,the harvest numbers
would grow more rapidly as the necessary escape-
ment became smaller,thus requiring a lower overall
run strength.
Because the projects wbich may be applied
against the gap are largely unidentified at this time,it
is not possible to estimate what the full species com-
position of the 12.000 million harvest would be.
The CIRPT envisions that identified,but as yet
unquantifiable,projects and those presently unknown
projects which will emerge during the twenty years
will contribute to reducing this gap still further.Al-
though in this analysis the gap may appear to be a
matter to be addressed in the year 2000,in fact,
efforts and opportunities to reduce it will be occurring
throughout the twenty years.
PROJECTED HARVEST COMPOSITION -2000
Even Years
EXHIBIT-BB
Odd Years
Sockeye
Pink
Chum
Coho
King
3,163,000
4,235,000
1,906,000
695,000
92,000
10,091,000
3,163,000
3,235,000
1,906,000
695,000
92,000
9,091,000
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-CC(1 )
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED
TARGET
EVEN YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 4,078,000 6,892,000 10,091,000 1.909.000 12,000,000
FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,770,000 2,984,000 4,113,000 955,000 5,068,000FISH
RUN 5,848,000 9,876,000 14,204,000 2.864,000 17.068,000
STRENGTH
GAP ANALYSIS EXHIBIT-CC(2)
PRESENT PROJECTED PROJECTED TARGET
ODD YEAR 1971-1980 1990 2000 RESIDUAL 2000
AVERAGES STATUS STATUS GAP STATUS
HARVESTABLE 3,810,000 6,092,000 9,091,000 2,909,000 12,000,000
FISH
NON-HARVESTABLE 1,720,000 2,584,000 3,613,000 1,455,000 5.068.000FISH
RUN 5,530,000 8,676,000 12,704,000STRENGTH 4,364,000 17.068.000
51
4 ••ae
5.6 REPRESENTATIVE IMPLICATIONS
OF GAP CLOSURE
It is clear that undertaking this ambitious program
requires commitments,and it is equally clear that its
eventual success would have diverse and significant
implications for the salmon fishery of Cook Inlet.
Some of those implications can only be hypothesized
now,but a generic awareness of their potential should
properly temper the progress of the work outlined in
the Plan.
Assuming that there is no large scale increase in
the number of commercial fishermen,there should be
sufficiently more fish available to satisfactorily meet
the anticipated increase in sport,subsistence and
commercial fishing pressure.
The knowledge of the complete Inlet drainage and
the contribution that each part is making to the entire
salmon resource should increase markedly.
Certainly one of the results of this overall pro-
gram would be to introduce somewhat more predict-
ability into the fishery,making it less subject to the
year-to-year fluctuations that have marked its history.
A secondary effect of that predictability,were it
to be achieved,would be a stronger position for "sup-
52
port"industries such as processing and those smaller
businesses which are an integral part of the sport
fishery.
The commercial salmon fishery of Cook Inlet is a
part of a large and international economic scenario
and is subject to supply and demand pressures arising
far outside the region or the State.Should efforts lo-
cally and internationally create an excess supply,
salmon prices and the overall condition of the industry
locally would have to be re-examined.
The commitment to monitor and assess the ef-
fects of these new fish on the existing fish stocks
must be made.It is entirely possible that any new pro-
ject will exact some toll on the existing stocks directly
associated with it.The project may then represent
some net gain which can only be measured against
the specific"cost"that it exacts.
Finally,the Plan as it is implemented will inevitably
require an increasing and continuous human interven-
tion in the status of the salmon resource.The impli-
cation of this requisite is the commitment to fund and
staff projects and programs at a level that allows
them to function effectively.
The next two chapters spell out the goals and
objectives and the strategies and projects that are
implicit in the analysis carried out here.
CHAPTER 6
>
6.0
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The overall goal of all participants in the fisheries
of Cook Inlet is an improved condition in the foresee-
able future.What constitutes that better condition is
expressed in a series of discrete but related goals.
These goals may represent a larger number of fish
available to harvest by the various user groups,the
collection and evaluation of new data about the pro-
duction of salmon in the Inlet,or revision of manage-
ment policies and practices.Binding all three types of
goals together are three basic beliefs;(1)the salmon
resource needs to be maintained in the strongest pos-
sible condition,(2)the most effective management
can only come with the attainment of the most com-
plete information base,and (3)the prudent harvest of
the salmon to the greatest extent possible is a posi-
tive benefit to the user groups and ultimately to the
region and the State.
6.1.1 Production/Harvest Goals
These goals are expressed in numbers of fish
available to harvest by the user groups.They are pre-
sented in terms of the various projects which have
been identified as potentially contributing to an in-
creased resource base.In turn each individual within a
user group will view that greater humber in relation to
his own past experience and present condition.
6.1.2 Research/Data-Gathering Goals
There are a number of efforts that need to be ex-
tended that will not directly result in more fish.They
will,however,lead to a stronger and more precise
harvester-manager-resource relationship so that the
harvest will be as efficient as it can be.Habitat sur-
veys will help to clarify the manner and extent to
which the salmon resource of the Inlet is making use
of the habitat which is available.Broadening the
group of systems to which escapement monitoring is
applied and the continued recording of the harvests
will increase understanding of the resource.Expan-
sion of the stock separation studies should provide a
basis for refining the application of harvest pressure.
Basically additional knowledge and experience are a
prerequisite to the achievement of the greater har-
vests that are sought by all user groups.
6.1.3 Policy/Management Goals
Certainly one of the goals of the Plan is to sup-
port the adequate funding of proposed research,data-
gathering,and production projects.
As a matter of policy and management the Plan
will continuously be re-examined in the context of
new information about the resource and the roles of
the user groups.
53
The Plan supports all efforts to continue and im-
prove the coordination between appropriate federal,
state and private non-profit agepcies actively involved
in salmon enhaneement.
6.1.4 Relationship of Goals to the
Target 2000 Status
Chapter 4 established a harvest target for the
year 2000 of 12.000 million salmon of all species.In
Chapter 5 that target harvest was examined in the
context of known projects and the production and
harvests which might be expected from them.The re-
sults of that examination showed the projected
species composition of a possible harvest in the year
2000 totalling approximately 10.901 million and a
residual gap in harvest of 1.909 salmon of undesig-
nated species composition.The Chapter 5 species
composition of harvests in 1990 and 2000 was de-
rived from the enhancement potential of each species
as estimated by project opportunities described in this
chapter.
6.2 PRODUCTION/HARVEST GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
There are three broad goals relating to the harvest
and production of salmon,and two of them can be
discussed in terms of more specific species goals and
objectives.
GOAL:
TO MAINTAIN THE PRESENT CONDITION AS A
BASE AND INCREASE AND STABILIZE THROUGH
IDENTIFIED PROJECTS THE RUNS OF ALL SALMON
SPECIES TO THE POll'll'THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT
AN ANNUAL HARVEST OF 6.892 MILLION IN THE
EVEN YEARS AND 6.092 MILLION IN THE ODD
YEARS BY 1990.
GOAL:
TO MAINTAIN THE PRESENT CONDITIOI\I AS A
BASE AND INCREASE AND STABILIZE THROUGH
IDENTIFIED PROJECTS THE RUNS OF ALL SALMON
SPECIES TO THE POINT THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT
AN ANNUAL HARVEST OF 10.091 MILLION IN THE
EVEN YEARS AND 9.091 MILLION IN THE ODD
YEARS BY 2000.
GOAL:
TO PURSUE DISCOVERY OF NEW ENHANCE-
MENT OPPORTUNITIES AND THROUGH THE IMPLE-
MENTATION OF THOSE THAT ARE FOUND TO BE
FEASIBLE INCREASE THE RUNS OF ALL SALMOI\I
SPECIES TO THE POINT THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT
IN THE ANNUAL HARVEST AN ADDITIONAL 1.909
MILLION IN THE EVEN YEARS AND 2.909 MILLION
IN THE ODD YEARS BY 2000.
The supporting goals and objectives are detailed
in the following sections and summarized in Exhibit
DD (page 54).For each species the goals and objec-
tives can be categorized into those applicable to the
period 1981-1990,1991-2000,and those for which
there is no specific timetable within the twenty-year
bracket.
PROJECT PRODUCTION SUMMARY EXHIBIT-DO
PROJECT SOCKEYE PINK CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
KASILOF HATCHERY 120,000 120,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.1 160,000 160,000
TRAIL LAKES HATCHERY 182,000 61,000 12,000 255,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.2 243,000 92,000 18,000 353,000
BIG LAKE HATCHERY 97,000 53,000 150,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.3 130,000 80,000 210,000
ANCHORAGE HATCHERY 133,000 50,000 183,000
COMPLEX ---
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.4 200,000 75,000 275,000
TUTKA HATCHERY 342,000 190,000 532,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.5 360,000 200,000 560,000
EKLUTNA HATCHERY 205,000 205,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.6 308,000 308,000
ENGLISH BAY LAKES 80,000 ;600,000 74,000 754,000
HATCHERY
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.7 100,000 750,000 92,000 942,000
PAINT RIVER 74,000 600,000 400,000 1,074,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.8 100,000 900,000 600,000 1,600,000
SCURVY CREEK 160,000 4,000 164,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.9 240,000 6,000 246,000
BIG RIVER LAKES 33,000 33,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.10 44,000 44,000
PTARMIGAN LAKE 14,000 14,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.11 19,000 19,000
CHENIK LAKE 71,000 /1,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.12 95,000 95,000
DELIGHT AND DESIRE 96,000 96,000
LAKES 129,000 129,000SEESECTION7.3.2.13
CRESCENT RIVER 127,000 127,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.14 170,000 170,000
LARSON LAKE 48,000 48,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.15 64,000 64,000
BYERS LAKE 24,000 24,000---
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.16 32,000 32,000
SHELL LAKE 60,000 60,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.17 80,000 80,000
BEAR LAKE 7,000 7,000
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.18 10,000 10,000
FINGER,DELYNDIA,8,000 8,000
AND BUTTERFLY LAKES
SEE SECTION 7.3.2.19 12,000 12,000
OTHERS-UNSPECIFIED 37,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 136,000
SEE SECTION7 .3.2.20 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000
TOTAL HARVEST 1,063,000 1,735,000 906,000 295,000 62,000 4,061,000
RUN 1,416,000 2,300,000 1,256,000 444,000 93,000 5,509,000
54
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 1.700
MILLION RETURNING PINK SALMON OF WHICH
1.292 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HAR-
VEST BY 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.560 million returning pink
salmon annually produced through the
Tutka Hatchery by 1990.
6.2.2 Pink Salmon
In keeping with the character of pink salmon runs
in Cook Inlet a distinction has been made between the
even year and odd year runs.
6.2.2.1 Goals Scheduled for 1981·1990
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF PINK
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 2.000 MILLION
IN THE EVEN YEARS AND 1.200 MILLION IN THE
ODD YEARS.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from the
natural stocks come under the head-
ings of research and management and
are discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
6.2.1 Sockeye Salmon
No distinction has been made between the even
and odd year runs of sockeye salmon.
6.2.1.1 Goals Scheduled for 1981-1990
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF
SOCKEYE SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD AL-
LOW A HARVEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF
1.700 MILLION ANI\JUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from the
natural stocks come under the head-
ings of research and management and
are discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHI\JIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.567
MILLlOf\1 RETURNIf\IG SOCKEYE SALMON OF WHICH
0.420 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
HARVEST ANNUALLY BY 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.160 million returning sock-
eye salmon annually produced through
the Kasilof Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.243 million returning sock-
eye salmon annually produced by the
Trail Lakes Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.130 million returning sock-
eye salmon annually produced·by the
Big Lake Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.034 million returning sock-
eye salmon annually produced in the
Paint River by 1990.
6.2.1 .2 Goals Scheduled for 1 991-2000
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF
SOCKEYE SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD
ALLOW A HARVEST FROM f\IATURAL STOCKS OF
2.100 MILLION FISH ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from natural
stocks come under the headings of re-
search and management and are dis-
cussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.016
MILLION RETURNING SOCKEYE SALMON OF WHICH
0.016 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HAR-
VEST BY 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.016 million additional return-
ing sockeye salmon annually produced
in the Paint River by 2000.
6.2.1.3 Unscheduled Goals (1981-2000)
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHI\JIQUES OR COMBINATIONS OF
TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.833 MILLION RE-
TURNING SOCKEYE SALMON OF WHICH 0.627
MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HARVEST BY
2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through natural lake en-
hancement of Big River Lakes an addi-
tional 0.044 million returning sockeye
salmon annually by 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through natural lake en-
55
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
OBJECTIVE:
hancement of Ptarmigan Lake an addi-
tional 0.019 million returning sockeye
salmon annually by 2000.
To produce through natural lake en-
hancement and fertilization of Chenik
Lake an additional 0.095 million return-
ing sockeye salmon annually by 2000.
To produce through natural lake en-
hancement and fertilization of the Paint
River system an additional 0.050 million
returning sockeye salmon annually by
2000.
To produce through natural lake en-
hancement and fertilization of Delight
and Desire Lakes an additional 0.129
million returning sockeye salmon by
2000.
To produce through fertilization of Cres-
cent Lake an additional 0.170 million re-
turning sockeye salmon by 2000.
To produce through fertilization of Lar-
son Lake an additional 0.064 million
returning sockeye salmon annually by
2000.
To produce through fertilization of Byers
Lake an additional 0.032 million return-
ing sockeye salmon annually by 2000.
To produce through fertilization of Shell
Lake an additional 0.080 million return-
ing sockeye salmon annually by 2000.
To produce through the English Bay
Lakes Hatchery an additional 0.100 mil-
lion returning sockeye salmon by 2000.
To produce through miscellaneous re-
habilitation and enhancement projects
such as stream clearance and rechannel-
ization a total of an additional 0.050
million returning sockeye salmon by
2000.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.900 million returning pink
salmon annually produced in the Paint
River system by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.240 million returning pink
salmon annually produced in Scurvy
Creek by 1990.
6.2.2.2 Goals Scheduled for 1991-2000
GOAL:
TO CONVERT SOME OF THE CAPACITY OF THE
TUTKA HATCHERY PREVIOUSLY USED FOR PINK
SALMON TO THE PRODUCTION OF CHUM SALMON.
OBJECTIVE:To reduce the production of pink salmon
at the Tutka Hatchery by 0.200 million
annually by 2000.(There will be a cor-
responding increase in chum salmon.)
6.2.2.3 Unscheduled Goals (1981-20001
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES OR COMBINATIONS OF
TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.800 MILLION RE-
TURNING PINK SALMON OF WHICH 0.633 MILLION
WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HARVEST BY 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.750 million returning pink
salmon produced annually through the
English Bay Lakes Hatchery.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through miscellaneous re-
habilitation and enhancement projects
such as stream clearance and rechannel-
ization a total of an additional 0.050
million returning pink salmon by 2000.
6.2.3 Chum Salmon
No distinction has been made between the even
and odd year runs of chum salmon.
6.2.3.1 Goals Scheduled for 1981-1990
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF CHUM
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 0.700 MILLION
ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to
achieve this level of harvest from the
natural stocks come under the headings
of research and management and are
discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL
PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.347
MILLION RETURNING CHUM SALMON OF WHICH
0.151 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HAR-
VEST BY 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.040 million returning chum
salmon annually produced through the
Tutka Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.126 million returning chum
salmon ar,)nually produced in the Paint
River system by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.006 million returning chum
salmon annually produced in Scurvy
Creek by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.175 million returning-,chum
salmon annually produced through the
Eklutna Hatchery by 1990.
6.2.3.2 Goals Scheduled for 1991-2000
56
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF CHUM
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 1.000 MILLION
ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps that would be taken
to achieve this level of harvest from
natural stocks come under the headings
of research and management and are
discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.634 MIL-
LION RETURNING CHUM SALMON OF WHICH 0.555
MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HARVEST BY
2000.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.160 million additional return-
ing chum salmon produced through the
Tutka Hatchery by 2000.
OB..IECTIVE:To have 0.4 74 million additional return-
ing chum salmon produced in the Paint
River system by 2000.
6.2.3.3 Unscheduled Goals (1981-20001
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHI\lIQUES OR COMBINATIONS OF
TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.275 MILLION RE-
TURNING CHUM SALMON OF WHICH 0.199 MIL-
LION WOULD,BE AVAILABLE FOR HARVEST BY
2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through the Eklutna Hatch-
ery an additional 0.133 million returning
chum salmon annually by 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through the English Bay
Lakes Hatchery an additional 0.092 mil-
lion returning chum salmon annually by
2000.
OB..IECTIVE:To produce through miscellaneous reha-
bilitation and enhancement projects
such as stream clearance and rechannel-
ization a total of an additional 0.050
million returning chum salmon by 2000.
6.2.4 Coho Salmon
No distinction has been made between the even
and odd year runs of coho salmon.
6.2.4.1 Goals Scheduled for 1981-1990
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF COHO
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 0.300 MILLION
ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from the
natural stocks come under the headings
of research and management and are
discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.372
MILLION RETURNING COHO SALMON OF WHICH
0.247 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HAR-
VEST BY 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.092 million returning coho
salmon annually produced through the
Trail Lakes Hatchery by 1990.
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE KNOWLEDGE OF LAKE FERTI-
salmon annually produced through the
Anchorage complex of hatcheries by
1990.
Goals Scheduled for 1991-2000
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.080 million returning coho
salmon annually produced through the
Big Lake Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.200 million returning coho
salmon annually produced through the
Anchorage complex of hatcheries by
1990.
6.2.4.2 Goals Scheduled for 1991-2000
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF COHO
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 0.400 MILLION
ANI\lUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from natural
stocks come under the headings of
research and management and are dis-
cussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
6.2.4.3 Unscheduled Goals (1981-2000)
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES OR COMBINATIONS OF
TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.072 MILLION RE-
TURNII\IG COHO SALMON OF WHICH 0.048
MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HARVEST BY
2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through fertilization of Bear
Lake an -additional 0.010 million return-
ing coho salmon annually by 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through fertilization of
Finger,Delyndia,and Butterfly Lakes an
additional 0.012 million returning coho
salmon annually by 2000.
OBJECTIVE:To produce through miscellaneous reha-
bilitation and enhancement projects
such as stream clearance and rechannel-
ization a total of an additional 0.050
million returning coho salmon annually
by 2000.
6.2.5 King Salmon
No distinction has been made between the even
and odd year runs of king salmon.
6.2.5.1 Goals Scheduled for 1981-1990
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF KING
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW A HAR-
VEST FROM NATURAL STOCKS OF 0.020 MILLION
ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from the
natural stocks come under the head-
ings of research and management and
are discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
GOAL:
TO PRODUCE THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL PRO-
DUCTION TECHNIQUES AN ADDITIONAL 0.093
MILLION RETURNING KING SALMON OF WHICH
0.062 MILLION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR HAR-
VEST ANNUALLY BY 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.018 million returning king
salmon annually produced through the
Trail Lakes Hatchery by 1990.
OBJECTIVE:To have 0.075 million returning king
57
~,
6.2.5.2
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE NATURAL STOCKS OF KII\JG
SALMON TO A LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW HAR-
VESTS FROM THE NATURAL STOCKS OF 0.030
MILLION ANNUALLY.
OBJECTIVE:The specific steps to be taken to a-
chieve this level of harvest from the
natural stock come under the headings
of research and management and are
discussed in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
6.3 RESEARCH/DATA-GATHERING
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The expression of goals and objectives in this
section will of necessity be less concrete than those
which have preceded them because they relate to
concepts rather to numbers of fish.
GOAL:
TO INCREASE THE DATA BASE RELATING TO
HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS THROUGHOUT THE
COOK INLET DRAINAGE AREA.
OBJECTIVE:To initiate a comprehensive program of
habitat location surveys throughout the
drainage area.
OBJECTIVE:To initiate a comprehensive program of
habitat productivity surveys throughout
the drainage area.
GOAL:
TO IDENTIFY THE SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL
DISTRIBUTION OF SALMON STOCKS IN COOK INLET
TO FACILITATE EFFICIEI\IT HARVEST AND TO IDEN-
TIFY AND ATTAIN ESCAPEMENT GOALS.
OBJECTIVE:To develop identification of more of the
stocks that are major components of the
salmon fishery.
OBJECTIVE:To refine and expand the technique of
in-season test fishing.
OBJECTIVE:To make greater use of mark and recap-
ture studies to define migratory routes
within the Inlet.
OBJECTIVE:To make greater use of mark and recap-
ture studies to identify the timing of
runs within the Inlet.
GOAL:
TO IMPROVE THE PREDICTIVE CAPACITY CON-
CERNING FUTURE RUN STRE~GTHS.
OBJECTIVE:To increase the amount of data available
to define suitable spawning habitat and
evaluate the productivity of the habitat.
OBJECTIVE:To increase the amount of pre-emergent
fry sampling and diversify it to include
all species of salmon.
OBJECTIVE:To increase the amount of smolt enu-
meration which is done.
OBJECTIVE:To increase the analysis of the available
freshwater rearing habitat.
OBJECTIVE:To increase the research into the estuar-
ine and marine "survival criteria for
juvenile salmon.
L1ZATION AS IT MAY APPLY TO SOUTHCENTRAL
ALASKA.
OBJECTIVE:To conduct thorough analyses of fertili-
zation projects which are carried to
recognize patterns of positive or nega-
tive characteristics.
GOAL:
TO CONTINUE EFFORTS TO INCREASE THE EFFI-
CACY OF HATCHERY FACILITIES.
OBJECTIVE:To continue to explore possible solu-
tions to disease problems such as that
posed by the IHN virus.
OBJECTIVE:To continue to examine requisite water
quality criteria.
OBJECTIVE:To continue to study the benefits asso-
ciated with various release timings and
stages.
OBJECTIVE:To continue to develop better genetic
guidelines associated with various
stocks of salmon.
6.4 POLICY/MANAGEMENT
GOALS AND OB..IECTIVES
Some of the goals and objectives outlined here
are beyond the authority of the CIRPT,but they do
represent the atmosphere in which the CIRPT wishes
the Plan to be accepted and function.
GOAL:
TO BROADEN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
SALMON RESOURCE IN COOK INLET TO INCLUDE
MANAGEMENT FOR ALL FIVE SPECIES OF SALMON.
OBJECTIVE:To secure sufficient staff and project
budgeting to build the information base
that would make management of sev-
eral species possible.
GOAL:
TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR
HABITAT PROTECTION.
OBJECTIVE:To widely disseminate knowledge about
the locations and sensitivities of salmon
habitat.
58
OBJECTIVE:To review all major projects not directly
related to salmon for the purposes of
determining their potential for habitat
destruction.
GOAL:
TO IMPROVE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE RESOURCE AND THE EN-
FORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE
RESOURCE.
OBJECTIVE:To support installation of permanent
markers at the boundaries of closed-
water areas.
OB~IECTIVE:To support enforcement staffing levels
that will allow increases in user con-
tacts.
OBJECTIVE:To support research that will help to
prevent violations by identifying key
problem areas.
OBJECTIVE:To support the acquisition of equipment
that will maximize enforcement mobility.
GOAL:
TO ESTABLISH AN ACTIVE AND SIGNIFICANT
ROLE FOR THE CIRPT IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLE-
MENTATION OF SALMON ENHANCEIVIENT EFFORTS
IN COOK INLET.
OBJECTIVE:To have the CIRPT review all salmon
enhancement projects planned for Cook
Inlet.
OBJECTIVE:To have the CIRPT review and comment
on all major projects which are not
directly related to salmon enhancement
for their potential to impede the pro-
gress of the work planned for enhance-
ment.
GOAL:
TO ASSURE THE CONTINUED USEFULNESS AND
TIIVlELINESS OF THE PLAN.
OBJECTIVE:To review major plan components in the
light of any major changes in the base
condition as described in the Plan.
OBJECTIVE:To conduct a formal review and adjust-
ment of the Plan's components in
1985, 1990,1995,and 2000.
CHAPTER 7
....".
7.0
STRATEGIES
AND PROJECTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapters there has been analysis
of current conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery
(Chapters 2 and 3)and projections of the changes
which may take place in the next twenty years
(Chapters 4 and 5).Chapter 6 attached names and
numbers to several projects which were sufficiently
identified at this time to do so.
The organization of this chapter is based on the
major strategies which will govern salmon enhance-
ment in Cook Inlet in the next twenty years.Within
the discussion of each strategy will be the identifica-
tion of those projects which are tangible manifesta-
tions of the strategy.As has been the case
throughout the Plan,a selection of the information
that is presented has been made.The Plan does not
contain all possible strategies or tactics,but rather
those which are considered as having a practical
application in Cook Inlet.
The strategies referred to are those general state-
ments of priorities and mission that guide the specific
actions of the agencies and associations working
toward the enhancement of the salmon resource.The
tactics are those specific actions which are usually
emploYE1d to address a particular situation in a manner
that furthers the overall strategy.
In the presentation of each project there is a de-
scription of the major participants in the completion of
the project.Wherever possible the species involved,
the work to be done,and the schedule for completion
are also identified.
The projects which are still in the formative
stages will,of necessity,be discussed in somewhat
less detail.The process of detailing them and quanti-
fying them will be one of the tasks to be undertaken
during the twenty years of the Plan.The projects
listed in this chapter are recognized and approved as
strategically desirable.It should be emphasized that
technical review and approval must still occur before
these projects can be implemented.Should an unfa-
vorable technical review prevent a project from
implementation,alternative projects will have to be
found.It is not expected that there will be a large
number of new strategies or tactics between now and
2000,but new opportunities for application of these
concepts and techniques should be numerous.
Exhibit EE presents a simplified schematic layout
of the relationships between the major strategies,the
tactics related to each of them,and the projects
which arise from their implementation.Because the
59
salmon fishery is an ongoing process with a long his-
torical background,no clear starting place for this
discussion logically presents itself.Therefore,for dis-
cussion purposes we will suggest that consideration
of the process begin with the research and evaluation
strategy (D.It is through this strategy that a under-
standing of the resource begins.
To implement the research and evaluation stra-
tegy there is a choice of several tactics @.These tac-
tics may be used singly or in combination,whichever
is most appropriate for the problem that is being
addressed.
The implementation of these tactics may lead to
one of two possible results.It may point out that
additional research projects are necessary ®'or it
may yield information that is directly applicable to one
or more of the four other major strategies @.
Each of the other four strategies has its own set
of tactics that have been identified as useful @.
The application of all tactics occurs through spe-
cific projects which are proposed and carried out@.
With the completion of each project there may be
a contribution to the enhancement of the salmon
resource (j)and new data to be fed into the research
and evaluation strategy Q).Thus the cycle begins
again.
As was indicated earlier there IS activity in all
phases of the cycle at the same time when all the en-
hancement efforts that are being put forth are
considered.In practice there are additional cross-
relationships not shown in Exhibit EE between the
major strategies.That activity and those cross-
relationships will be identified in more detail in the
subsequent narrative sections of this chapter.
7.2 RESEARCH AND
EVALUATION STRATEGY
7.2.1 Strategy and Tactics
The research and evaluation strategy is to provide
effective tools for resource management.It is,there-
fore,indirect and supportive as compared with strate-
gies such as harvest management.It is,of necessity,
a long-term strategy that demands a dedication of
funding and staff and a consistency of approach to
derive useful results.Those results may lead to addi-
tional reqUired research or may be directly applied in
some other strategy.The principal tactics employed
under this strategy are:
•field surveys
•computer modeling
•data gathering
•data analysis
•qualitative sampling
•fish enumeration
STRATEGY/TACTIC/PROJECT RE LATIONSH IP
TACTICS
•HATCHERY DEVELOPMENT
•STREAM CLEARANCE
•FISH PASS CONSTRUCTION
•LAKE FERTILIZA liON
•SPAWNING CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION
•WATER FLOW CONTROL
•LAKE STOCKING
•STREAM STOCKING
EXHIBIT-EE
>Clw
I-eta:
I->
(J)>Cl >I-Cl w
Z w I-Cl
w I-et w
:2 et a:I-
a:I-etw(J)a:u I-10"(J)I-Z Z (J)
et (J)w ZJ:(J):2 0zw
w U w i=
Z u Cl U~et w0ZI-i=z et 00eti=:2 a:
'I-l1.
~::l l-I-
iii III (J)eta:w
et >I-
J:I-a:iii
w (J)et eta:i5 J:J:
•FISHING PERIODS
, •EMERGENCY CLOSURES
•EMERGENCY OPENINGS
•ESCAPEMENT MONITORING
•TEST FISHING
•BAG LIMITS
•USER LICENSING
•LIMITED ENTRY
•GEAR SPECIFICATIONS
•OPEN AREAS
•CLOSED AREAS
TACTICS
•ACQUISITION OF HABITAT
•SETTING USE CONDITIONS
•PROTECTIVE STATUS
•PUBLIC AWARENESS
•REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
;g ;g
o 0e-e-m m
(")(")
-l -l
(J)(J)
•FIELD SURVEYS
•COMPUTER MODELING
•DATA GATHERING
•DATA ANALYSIS
•QUALITATIVE SAMPLING
•FISH ENUMERATION
60
7.2.2 Projects
There are several identified projects which jhave
to do with research,data-gathering and,ultimately,
management.-
7.2.2.1 Spawning Ground Survey
This project would deal with only Upper Cook
Inlet and would be carried out primarily by the re-
search arm of the Commercial Fish Division.The
thrust of the project is to verify and explore the ramifi-
cations of sonar escapement counts where they exist
and develop comparable monitoring where it would be
useful and is not now in place.Three specific ele-
ments have now been defined within this general pro-
ject.First,because of problems with migration
outside the sonar counter verification of the counts on
the Kasilof River is necessary.Second,there should
be a program to assess the distribution of spawners in
the Kenai,Kasilof and Susitna River systems.Finally,
it would be useful to develop an historical perspective
on previous escapements in the Susitna system where
sonar has only been in operation for two years.
7.2.2.2 Upper Cook Inlet Run Modeling
There are serious time constraints on the data
acquisition/management decision process which is
central to the effective management of the Upper
Cook Inlet fisheries.The continued development and
refinement of a computer simulation model for the
Upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks would be of marked
assistance in data compilation and analysis.
The types of data to be processed include catch,
excapement,off-shore test fishing results,and in-
district test fishing results.A management system has
been developed to make possible in-season data
analysis.The simulation techniques will allow the
managers to evaluate variations in run timing,stock
abundance,and harvest management tactics so that
there can be appropriate applications of fishing times
and area schedules.
7.2.2.3 Evaluation of Hatchery Stocked
Fry Survival -Kenai Lake
When funded,this high priority project will assess
the freshwater survival of sockeye,king,and coho
salmon fry released from the Trail Lakes Hatchery into
Kenai Lake and its tributaries.The work will involve
estimating the number of smolts resulting from the re-
lease of sockeye fry and king and coho fingerlings.
Additionally there will be identification of the contri-
bution of Trail lakes Hatchery salmon fry to the total
smolt outmigration from Kenai Lake and the optimum
time,location and developmental stage for fry/finger-
ling release.
7.2.2.4 Hidden Lake Assessment
This ongoing F.R.E.D.project is directed at
gathering the requisite information to plan,implement
and evaluate efforts to enhance the Hidden Lake sock-
eye salmon run to an optimum level commensurate
with its high productivity and potential rearing capa-
city.Detailed information will be gathered on the
significant characteristics of the adult run into Hidden
Lake and the outmigrating smolt.At the same time
data will be gathered to develop a limnological profile
of the Lake to determine lake productivity and opti-
mum timing for fry release into the Lake.
7.2.2.5 Quartz Creek Broodstock Evaluation
The object of this funded and ongoing F.R.E.D.
61
project is to provide a brood stock source for the Trail
Lakes Hatchery and to assess the rearing potential
and survival of salmon fry to smolt in the Quartz
Creek system.Adult escapement to and smolt outmi-
gration from the Quartz Creek system will be evalua-
ted with particular reference to wild stocks of
sockeye,king and coho salmon.Similar outmigration
data will be collected for hatch'ery stocked sockeye,
king and coho salmon in the Quartz Creek system.
Finally there will be an evaluation of the escapement
levels,rearing capability,and other biological,chemi-
cal and physical data on the Quartz Creek system to
determine a management program for this system.
7.2.2.6 Kasilof Hatchery Evaluation
The aim of this funded and ongoing F.R.E.D.pro-
ject is to assess the freshwater survival of sockeye
salmon released from the Kasilof Hatchery into Tustu-
mena Lake.A related goal from a separate project is
to determine the sockeye salmon rearing capacity of
Tustumena Lake based on data collected through this
project and through a cooperative study with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.The project will determine
adult escapements in selected inlet streams of Tustu-
mena Lake.The spring-to-fall survival of both wild and
hatchery sockeye salmon fry rearing in Tustumena
Lake will be determined as will the fry-to-smolt survi-
val of sockeye salmon migrating from the Lake.Finally
there will also be the collection of limnological data to
assess the productive potential of the Lake.
7.2.2.7 Crooked Creek King Salmon Enhancement
The goal of this F.R.E.D.project is to enhance the
run of king salmon to Crooked Creek and to maintain
a viable brood stock source at this site.A related goal
is to assess the survival of hatchery released king
salmon smolts to adult stage.
It will be necessary to assess fingerling and/or
smolt survival of hatchery released king salmon to
adult stage and to determine adult escapement,age
composition,length and weight of returning king
salmon.There will be an estimate of commercial,sub-
sistence and sport utilization of hatchery released king
salmon.Finally,there will be determination of opti-
mum size,number and time of release for hatchery
reared king salmon in order to manage the program
with biological and economic efficiency.
7.2.2.8 Homer Area Salmon Smolt Stocking Program
The major goal of this F.R.E.D.project is the
enhancement of the sport and subsistence fisheries in
the Kachemak Bay area in future years to accommo-
date the greatly increased fishing pressure.This
includes cooperation with the Sport Fish Division in
providing an additional harvest of 15,000 coho sal-
mon to satisfy 30,000 man-days of effort.
Coho smolt stocking programs were initiated
several years ago in the Kachemak Bay area in an ef-
fort to promote the sport and subsistence fisheries.
Sites utilized thus far inGlude Fritz Creek,Homer Spit
and Beluga Lake.Tasks involved with this project
include:(1)smolt transport and release approval for
Fritz Creek;(2)release site reconnaissance and pre-
paration;(3)Fritz Creek release;(4)public information
on release and potential returns;and (5)evaluation of
adult returns.
7.2.2.9 Tutka Hatchery Evaluation
The ultimate goal of this funded and ongoing
F.R.E.D.project's tasks in combination is the
increased survival and quality of Tutka Hatchery pro-
duced pink and chum salmon fry with the subsequen(
increase in the hatchery contribution to the Tutka Bay
system adult salmon returns.
This project includes several component tasks
which when conducted will combine to evaluate pro-
duction at the Tutka Lagoon Hatchery.Individual
tasks include:(1)evaluation of short-term rearing of
pink and chum salmon fry with special emphasis on
monitoring plankton population levels to determine
optimum timing of release;(2)Tutka Creek wild pink
and chum salmon fry evaluation performed to provide
comparisons to hatchery fry quality;to provide for
wild fry marking and release for comparisons of adult
quality and ultimate ocean survival rates;to maintain
an annual comparative index relating to levels of
natural production within Tutka Creek;(3)adult sal-
mon return evaluation program is designed to deter-
mine the number of marked salmon present in the
return to ultimately estimate ocean survival rates as
well as hatchery contribution to the total Tutka Bay
salmon run.This program also provides for ultimate
comparison of various hatchery treatment release
groups as well as natural stocks;(4)Tutka Lagoon
predator control study conducted to continue to col-
lect baseline data on Dolly Varden and herring preda-
tion of wild and hatchery pink and chum salmon fry
within the Tutka Creek and Lagoon system.It will
help to determine the extent and feasibility of con-
ducting future predator control programs and/or im-
proving on hatchery release methods.Major emphasis
should be placed upon determining the potential levels
of herring predation;and (5)pink and chum salmon
fry food habit study involves the identification and re-
verification of primary food sources within the Tutka
Bay and Lagoon system.This task will also attempt to
reconfirm as well as determine additional nursery
areas utilized by pink and chum fry in Tutka Bay and
Lagoon.
7.2.2.10 Halibut Cove Lagoon
Saltwater Rearing Evaluation
This F.R.E.D.smolt release experimental project
was designed to enhance the king salmon sportfishery
in the Kachemak Bay area.It involves the ongoing
king salmon smolt stocking program at Halibut Cove
Lagoon which was originally started in 1974.Approx-
imately 100,000-200,000 king salmon smolts at 20-
30 per pound size were transported to the facility by
barge and tanker truck where they were short-term
reared and imprinted for a 2-3 week period and subse-
quently released on-site.
The program attempts to evaluate the relative
success of releasing king salmon smolts to provide a
sportfishery in the Kachemak Bay area by providing an
additional harvest of 2,000 king salmon to satisfy
10,000 man days of ,effort.
This project,which was active in 1981 but is not
scheduled for 1982,involves the continued evalua-
tion of king salmon smolt releases by adult capture
and sampling for coded wire tags (CWT).V,,!luable
data on comparative quality of adults as well as ulti-
mate ocean survival rates will be obtained.In
addition,contribution to the fishery will also be deter-
mined.The tasks involved with this project include:
62
(1)screening adult king salmon returns in Kachemak
Bay area;(2)sample adults for age,vv9ight and length
and CWT;(3)lab analysis ofCWT;(4)data reduction
and analysis.
7.2.2.11 Evaluation of Responses to Sockeye Fry
Stocking in a Lake with Naturally
Reproducing Sockeye Stocks -
Tustumena Lake
This two-part research project involves the Com-
mercial Fish and F.R.E.D.Divisions of ADF&G in
Soldotna and the Fishery Resources Program of the
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service in Kenai.
Part one of the project is to determine the poten-
tial of oxytetracycline (OTC)marking and recovery
analysis as a technique for evaluating sockeye fry
stocking in Tustumena Lake.
Part two involves the use of hydroacoustics to
estimate the spatial and temporal distribution of juve-
nile sockeye salmon in Tustumena Lake.
The combination of the two parts of the project
will lead to the determination of which stocking densi-
ties and procedures provide the maximal survival of
stocked fry which can be obtained without detri-
mental impact to natural stocks.
ADF&G has a long history of research work on
Tustumena Lake,one of the major sockeye producing
systems in Cook Inlet.This project was initiated in
1981 with hydroacoustical surveys,and it will be
ongoing through early 1986.
The information obtained from this study should
have wide application in the State of Alaska and will
be particularly useful in future evaluations of major
sockeye producing systems in Cook Inlet.Although
Tustumena Lake is currently the only major lake in
Cook Inlet receiving substantial stocking of hatchery-
reared sockeye fry,significant expansion of hatchery
sockeye production will occur in the near future.The
techniques developed for evaluating stocking respon-
ses in Tustumena Lake and the results obtained from
this investigation should be very useful in planning,
coordinating and implementing an effective stocking
program for sockeye production.
7.2.2.12 Marking Effectiveness on Sockeye Salmon
The National Fisheries Research Center (U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service)through its Alaska Field Station
is assisting the F.R.E.D.Division of ADF&G with a
research project on the effectiveness of fin clipping
and OTC marking of sockeye salmon.The stocks
being examined originated from Tustumena and Rus-
sian Lakes.The project is exploring the rate of fin
regeneration and the length of time that OTC mark-
ings are effective.The project,which was initiated in
1981,may continue in 1982.The reliability of mark-
ing techniques is important to many other research
and management strategies.
7.2.2.13 Deshka River Coho Salmon Study
Since 1 980 the Alaska Field Station of the
National Fisheries Research Center and the Sport Fish
Division of ADF&G have been involved in radio tag-
ging of coho salmon in the Deshka River.The purpose
of the study was to identify both spawning areas and
travel time of coho salmon using the Deshka River.
The method employed was to tag,release and radio
track migrating adults.Several mainstem spawning
areas were found in 1980.The project may be con-
tinued in 1982.
7.2.2.14 Anchor River King Salmon Study
The Sport Fish Division of ADF&G and the Alaska
Field Station of the National Fisheries Research Center
plan to undertake a radio tagging study in 1982 to in-
vestigate the behavior of king salmon in the Anchor
River.The tagging,which would occur near the
mouth of the Anchor River,would be designed to
yield information on travel patterns and timing and to
determine the vulnerability of king salmon to the
anglers.
7.2.2.15 Sixmile Creek King Salmon and
Coho Salmon Study
During 1980 and 1981 the U.S.Forest Service
undertook a project to determine the run size and be-
havior of adult king and coho salmon returning to
Sixmile Creek.The Alaska Field Station of the Na-
tional Fisheries Research Center assisted with this
study in 1980.A velocity barrier in the Creek had
already been identified as an impediment to at least
some of the adult salmon.The three major points of
this project were:(1)to determine the size of the king
and coho salmon runs to the Creek,(2)to determine
how many salmon are able to negotiate the velocity
barrier and (3)to determine the portions of the up-
stream habitat which they use for spawning.The
observation of adult salmon above the velocity barrier
indicated that significant numbers of fish make it
through the barrier and make use of the upstream
habitat.
7.2.2.16 Kenai River Spawning and Rearing Study
The Alaska Field Station of the National Fisheries
Research Center,under contract with their Division of
Ecological Services,and with assistance from the
Sport Fish and F.R.E.D.Divisions of ADF&G has been
conducting studies on salmon in the Kenai River sys-
tem.The studies cover two broad areas of concern:
(1)the spawning areas,travel timing and patterns of
returning adults,and (2)the identification and defini-
tion of preferred habitat for juvenile salmon.In both
cases the data were sought as a means of identifying
impacts on the salmon resource from development
and to provide management data for ADF&G bio-
logists.
Adult king and coho salmon were tagged to deter-
mine their rate of upstream movement and spawning
destination.The project has already identified signifi-
cant differences between the early and late runs of
king salmon in the Kenai River.Early run salmon pre-
ferred tributaries for spawning,while late run fish pre-
ferred the Kenai River proper.In addition a clearer
picture of the characteristics of the preferred habitat
and the extent of habitat usage in the Killey River
system (a Kenai tributary used by early run kings)has
begun to emerge.
The second portion of this work was also going
on in 1979,1980 and 1981 through studies to de-
termine the habitat requirements of juvenile king,
coho and sockeye salmon in the Kenai River.The pro-
ject included data collection for the development of
preference curves for velocity range,depth range,
food and cover.Major rearing areas were identified
through catch-per-unit-of-effort analysis.
7.2.2.17 Genetics of Russian River Sockeye Salmon
Since 1978 the Alaska Field Station of the Na-
tional Fisheries Research Center,in cooperation
63
with the Sport Ash Division of ADF&G,has studied
the genetics of Russian River sockeye salmon.In each
of four y~ars a major genetic difference was found be-
tween early and late run sockeye,thus a potential
exists for future stock separation.This study is being
continued.
7.2.2.18 Susitna River Radio Tagging Study
Under contract to ADF&G (SuHydro),the Alaska
Field Station of th-e National Fisheries Research Center
has assisted in radio tagging of king,coho and chum
salmon in the Susitna River during 1 981.Objectives
of the study were to determine the extent of habitat
utilization by salmon in the upper Susitna near the
proposed hydroelectriC facility.
7.2.2.19 Preliminary Site Investigations For Potential
Hatchery,Lake Stocking,and
Habitat Improvement Sites
The major goal of this project which is not cur-
rently funded is to insure the proper selection of can-
didate F.R.E.D.Division project sites in the lower
Cook Inlet area.
It involves the inventory and ultimate identifica-
tion of lower Cook Inlet area potential F.R.E.D.
projects.More specifically,an attempt would be made
to prioritize these inventoried areas as potential hatch-
ery,lake stocking and rehabilitation,fish ladder or
habitat improvement sites.The following tasks would
be involved:(1)identification of potential sites by
map and aerial photo interpretation;(2)on-site recon-
naissance of selected sites;(3)initiate physical and
biological monitoring at high priority sites;(4)engi-
neering site reconnaissance of top priority sites.
7.2.3 Summary
The preceding nineteen projects are representa-
tive of the research and evaluation strategy which
seeks to understand the present condition in the con-
text of the major factors that influence it.This effort
to understand is more than purely academic because
it is directed at more effective application of manage-
ment and enhancement practices.This strategy
functions like an umbrella over the other strategies
preceding their application (Section 7.2.2.19),
serving as an integral part of their implementation
(Section 7.2.2.2),and assessing their effectiveness
(Section 7.2.2.10).
7.3 REHABILITATION/ENHANCEMENT
STRATEGY
7.3.1 Strategy and Tactics
These are strategies designed to replenish
depressed stocks and increase the number of naturally
occuring salmon beyond levels that they would reach
without the intervention of man.In most cases a se-
quence of tactics is necessary to achieve the end
which is sought.They are procedures applied to the
fish and/or the various habitats in which they are or
could be present.After appropriate consultation with
ADF&G,anyone of several associations and agencies
which are interested in salmon enhancement might
actually carry out the work.
The following prominent tactics used under this
strategy have been discussed in detail in Section
3.3.2.
•hatchery development
•stream clearance
•fish pass construction
•lake fertilization
•spawning channel construction
•water flow control
•lake stocking
•stream stocking
7.3.2 Projects
While a large number of projects have received
the attention of the CIRPT,the members realize that
still others,perhaps many of them,will emerge as of-
fering some potential during the twenty years of the
Plan.The most fully developed of these rehabilitation
and enhancement projects have been accounted for in
Chapter 5 and identified in Chapter 6.These can be
designated as quantifiable projects (Exhibit FFl,but it
should be clearly understood that much examination
of their individual feasibility remains to be done.
7.3.2.1 Kasilof Hatchery
The Kasilof Hatchery functions as a remote incu-
bation facility for sockeye salmon and as an egg take
site for king salmon and steelhead.Selected tribu-
taries of Tustumena Lake are the sources of sockeye
salmon eggs which are taken to the hatchery and
reared to the fed fry stage.The hatchery will be at its
capacity of 20 million eggs in 1981.Most of the fry
are released in Tustumena Lake.
It is a F.R.E.D.facility that will account for
160,000 adult sockeye salmon by 1990.This projec-
tion is based on the assumption that appropriate
levels of funding and staffing will be continued.
7.3.2.2 Trail Lakes Hatchery
Construction of this F.R.E.D.facility began in the
spring of 1 981.While three salmon species may be
handled by the hatchery (sockeye,coho,and king),
sockeye salmon will be the dominant species account-
ing for about 69 percent of the annual production.
The facility located in the eastern portion of the Kenai
Peninsula near Kenai Lake is expected to be at full
capacity by 1992.This would mean the annual pro-
duction of 243,000 adult sockeye salmon,92,000
adult coho salmon,and 18,000 adult king salmon.It
is anticipated that the facility will function as a central
incubation facility,receiving eggs from as yet undes-
ignated sites and returning fry to as yet undesignated
locations.The assumption is that sufficient funding
will be made available for the hatchery to proceed as
now envisioned.
7.3.2.3 Big Lake Hatchery
F.R.E.D.'s Big Lake Hatchery a short distance
north of the Knik Arm has been operational since
1974.The strategy involved is to rear sockeye and
coho salmon fry and release the sockeye salmon into·
Fish·Creek,Meadow Creek,Nancy Lake and Wasilla
Lake.The coho salmon fry are release<;l into the Little
Susitna River and other systems in the Matanuska-
Susitna valleys.By 1990 it is expected that produc-
tion from this facility will be about 130,000 adult
sockeye salmon and 80,000 adult coho salmon.
7.3.2.4 Anchorage Hatchery Complex-
Ft.Richardson and Elmendorf
The F.R.E.D.facility at Fort Richardson is the
major component of this complex.Crooked Creek is
the present source of king salmon eggs for this faci-
64
lity.Coho salmon eggs are secured in Bear Creek near
Seward,but a new site is being sought.King salmon
releases occur in the Matanuska-Susitna valleys,
Halibut Cove,and Crooked Creek.The coho salmon
are released in Fritz Creek,Halibut Cove,Seward,
Whittier,and on the Homer Spit and are used in lake
stocking in landlocked situations.Given the appropri-
ate funding and staffing it is projected that this
complex which is undergoing expansion that will be
complete in 1982 could account for the annual pro-
duction of 75,000 adult king salmon and 200,000
adult coho salmon by 1990.
7.3.2.5 Tutka Hatchery
This F.R.E.D.hatchery on Tutka Lagoon on the
south side of Kachemak Bay has been in operation
since 1975 and has been functioning primarily as a
producer of pink salmon.The location is such that it
lends itself to a terminal harvest.Overall production is
expected to increase at this facility,and in the
process there will be a change in emphasis so that by
the year 2000 chum salmon will be approximately 36
percent of the annual production.The broodstock for
this facility comes from Port Dick and Tutka Creek,
and in addition to releases at the hatchery some re-
leases have occurred in the Paint River system.As-
suming funding and staffing support annual produc-
tion is expected to reach 360,000 adult pink salmon
and 200,000 adult chum salmon.
7.3.2.6 Eklutna Hatchery
The Eklutna Hatchery is now in the final stages of
permitting and will be a CIAA facility located near the
upper end of the Knik Arm.Construction of the faci-
lity is scheduled to begin in 1981 with production
slated to begin in 1982.This will be the first private
non-profit hatchery in Cook Inlet and will be basically
a chum salmon facility,although there is some pro-
vision for experimentation with the production of
coho salmon.Initial broodstocks will come from
stocks originating in the vicinity of the hatchery.By
2000 annual chum salmon production trom this faci-
lity is expected to be 308,000 adult fish.
7.3.2.7 English Bay Lakes Hatchery
Details of this project have not yet been devel-
oped nor has it been funded,however the site on the
south side of Kachemak Bay did emerge as a good
candidate for a hatchery as a result of the F.R.E.D.
site selection process.Three species are contempla-
ted as being feasible for this hatchery,sockeye,pink
and chum salmon.It is a site that would lend itself to
a terminal harvest technique.Annual production could
account for 100,000 adult sockeye salmon,750,000
adult pink salmon,and 92,000 adult chum salmon by
2000.
7.3.2.8 Paint River System
Work has already been undertaken on the Paint
River as a result of cooperative efforts between the
F.R.E.D.Division and CIAA.Both are expected to con-
tinue involvement in the project and will probably be
joined in an increasing fashion by the Commercial Fish
Division in the later stages of the project.Three basic
tactics may be involved in this effort.First,salmon
have already been planted in the system;but a large
falls near the mouth of the river prevents returning
salmon from reaching the upper portions of the river
system.Thus,the second tactic which may be funded
QUANTIF.IABLE PROJECTS
/'
;'
.~../
{
"I
./
/
/
EXHIIBIT-FF
-.-
.-'-'/
/
j
/
/'
I
I
/
I
I
\i
/
I
I
1 KASILOF HATCHERY
2 TRAIL LAKES HATCHERY
3 BIG LAKE HATCHERY
4 ANCHORAGE HATCHERY COMPLEX
5 TUTKA HATCHERY
6 EKLUTNA HATCHERY
7 ENGLISH BAY LAKES HATCHERY
8 PAINT RIVER
9 SCURVY CREEK
10 BIG RIVER LAKES
11 PTARMIGAN LAKE
12 CHENIK LAKE
13 DELIGHT AND DESIRE LAKES
14 CRESCENT RIVER
15 LARSON LAKE
16 BYERS LAKE
17 SHELL LAKE
18 BEAR LAKE
19 FINGER.DEL YNDIA,AND 8UTTERFL Y LAKES
65
in FY 82 is feasibility planning which will examine
construction of a fish pas~.Finally,once the fish pass
is complete and the runs have been established,it is
possible that the system will be a suitable candidate
for fertilization.Once established the production of
this system would be sufficiently discrete to be the
subject of a terminal harvest.That production could
number 100,000 adult sockeye,900,000 adult pink,
and 600,000 adult chum salmon annually.
7.3.2.9 Scurvy Creek
This is a project in Rocky Bay in which CIAA has
taken the lead in cooperative efforts with the F.R.E.D.
and Commercial Fish Divisions.Work began with the
stocking of pink and chum salmon in 1980.Port Dick
and Rocky River served as sources of broodstocks.
Observation of the system indicated that the presence
of a velocity chute creates a serious impediment to
the upstream migration of adult pink salmon.It ap-
pears that some blasting of the ledge that forms the
velocity chute will allow for the creation of a partial
channel diversion with sufficient pools to allow adult
salmon to pass upstream.When sufficient runs have
been established the project would lend itself to a ter-
minal harvest.Production is estimated at 240,000
adult pink salmon and 6,000 adult chum salmon
annually.
7.3.2.10 Big River lakes
This project located inland from Redoubt Bay and
the West Forelands is one that has been undertaken
by CIAA.Initial habitat surveys were done in 1980;
and additional,more detailed work,is scheduled for
1981.The site contains six non-glacial lakes one of
which has no apparent potential and four of which
already have natural runs of sockeye and coho
salmon.The remaining lak,e in the system has several
barriers to the migration of adult salmon.One of the
tactics involved would be the clearance of those bar-
riers.Certainly an additional tactic would be to plant
fish in the lake.Further study will reveal whether the
most suitable use of the complex is rearing,the estab-
lishment of annual runs,the construction of a
hatchery,or some combination of these possibilities.
With the clearance of the barriers and the planting of
fish in the lake,it is expected annual production could
be increased by 44,000 adult sockeye salmon.
7.3.2.11 Ptarmigan lake
This 640 acre lake just to the east of Kenai Lake
could provide production through the installation of a
fish pass,some stocking and potentially fertilization.
F.R.E.D.Division and the U.S.Forest Service are co-
operatively involved in this project.After the fish pass
is built,it is expected that it would take four or five
years of stocking to establish the run of sockeye
salmon which would account for about 19,000 adult
fish ,annually.
7.3.2.12 Chenik lake
Chenik Lake is a 292 acre lake located just west
of Kamishak Bay and Is'the object of an as yet unfun-
ded F.R.E.D.Division'project involving several tactics.
The lake has an historic escapement of about 50,000
sockeye salmon.However it is felt that with channel
improvement in the area of the rock sills near the
mouth,stocking,and fertilization the system"could
annually produce 95,000 adult sockeyes.The system
was stocked with fry from Tustumena Lake in 1978
and 1979.
66
7.3.2.13 Delight and Desire lakes
Although they are physically separate,these two
lakes on the east side of the East Arm of I\luka Bay are
viewed as a single 1,086 acre unit for this project
proposed by the F.R.E.D.Division.Both lakes are can-
didates for fertilization and would provide the oppor-
tunity for terminal harvests.Production from this
project could reach 129,000 adult sockeye salmon
annually.
The Regional Planning Team has been advised by
the National Park Service that this project would re-
quire actions which would "constitute an inappropri-
ate and unacceptable change to National Park Service
lands and waters and are directly contrary to both law
and policy."The Team understands this present limi-
tation but will continue to carry the project represent-
ing a potential resource which would be available for
realization should law and policy change during the
life of the Plan.
7.3.2.14 Crescent River
The Crescent River and Crescent Lake,a glacial
lake,are located on the north side of Tuxedni Bay and
are the objects of a project involving both F.R.E.D.
and Commercial Fish Divisions.The key element of
the project would be fertilization of the 1,658 acre
lake,and pre-fertilization studies are already under-
way.The success of this project could mean an addi-
tional 170,000 adult sockeye salmon annually.
The Regional Planning Team has been advised by
the National Park Service that this project would re-
quire actions which would "constitute an inappropri-
ate and unacceptable change to National Park Service
lands and waters and are directly contrary to both law
and policy."The Team understands this present limi-
tation but will continue to carry the project represent-
ing a potential resource which would be available for
realization should law and policy change during the
life of the Plan.
7.3.2.15 larson lake
This 800 acre lake near Talkeetna is a candidate
for fertilization as a F.R.E.D.Division project.Pre-
fertilization studies have yet to be done,but it is
believed that this tactic could produce an additional
64,000 adult sockeye salmon annually.
7.3.2.16 Byers lake
This 400 acre lake east of the Chulitna River is a
candidate for fertilization as a F.R.E.D.Division pro-
ject.Pre-fertilization studies have yet to be done,but
the success of this tactic could produce an additional
32,000 adult sockeye salmon annually.
7.3.2.17 Shell lake
This 1 ,000 acre lake between the Skwentna and
Yentna Rivers is a candidate for fertilization as a
F.R.E.D.Division project.Pre-fertilization studies have
yet to be done,but it is believed that this tactic could
produce an additional 80,000 adult sockeye salmon
annually.
7.3.2.18 Bear lake
This 445 acre lake just north of Resurrection Bay
is a candidate for fertilization as a F.R.E.D.Division
project and,in fact,has already had two years of pre-
fertilization studies conducted on it.It is expected
that the employment of this tactic could annually pro-
duce an additional 10,000 adult coho salmon.
7.3.2.19 Finger.Delyndia and Butterfly lakes
These three lakes situated between the Susitna
River and Big Lake and totalling approximately 600
acres are candidates for fertilization as a F.R.E.D.Divi-
sion project.Pre-fertilization studies have yet to be
done,but it is believed that this tactic could produce
an additional 12,000 adult coho salmon annually.
7.3.2.20 Developing Projects
The level of information about some projects is
such that no project-by-project estimate of potential
salmon production can be made.However,there was
general consensus that some increased production
was possible.Thus,a total of 50,000 each for four
species of salmon were included in the projected
2000 status described in Chapter 5 and attributed to
these projects.It is entirely possible that as some of
these projects become more fully developed refine-
ment of those numbers will be possible.The location
and nature of each of these projects is shown in Ex-
hibit GG.
These projects include general fisheries develop-
ment work at Packers Lake,Portage Ponds,Sixmile
Creek,and Bull Dog Cove.There are also construction
oriented projects such as fish passes at Leisure Lake
and rearing ponds in Resurrection Bay.The remainder
of these projects involve some form of obstacle clear-
ance to facilitate the passage of salmon in Island
Creek,Dogfish Bay Creek,Windy Right Creek,Porcu-
pine Cove,Two Arm Bay,Port Dick (Middle Creek),
Gore Point Lake,Rocky River,and at Anderson Beach
and Nuka Island.
The Regional Planning Team has been advised by
the National Park Service that the Bull Dog Cove,Por-
cupine Cove,Two Arm Bay and Nuka Island projects
would require actions which would "constitute an in-
appropriate and unacceptable change to National Park
Service lands and waters and are directly contrary to
both law and policy."The Team understands this
present limitation but will continue to carry the pro-
jects representing potential resources which would be
available for realization should law and policy change
during the life of the Plan.
7.3.2.21 Suspected Projects
One step further removed are those projects
which have not yet received any study and are based
on the most general knowledge of their locale.They
would,however,rank high on the list of investigative
priorities as the Cook Inlet salmon enhancement plan-
ning process moves into Phase II,the specific addres-
sing of the goals and objectives set out here.These
projects are located and identified on Exhibit HH.
The Regional Planning Team has been advised by
the National Park Service that the Delight Lake Hatch-
ery,Nuka Bay Hatchery and Strike Creek projects
would require actions which would "constitute an
inappropriate and unacceptable change to National
Park Service lands and waters and are directly con-
trary to both law and policy."The Team understands
this present limitation but will continue to carry the
projects representing potential resources which would
be available for realization should law and policy
change during the life of the Plan.
7.3.3 Summary
These 46 projects represent a broad range of tac-
tics under the general heading of rehabilitation/en-
hancement strategy.More fish will be made available
through hatchery incubation of eggs (Section
67
7.3.2.1),new or additional habitat will be made ac-
cessible to spawning salmon (Section 7.3.2.8)and
produG,..tion of existing systems can be increased
(Section 7.3.2.13).Each of these efforts will have to
be subjected to the evaluation strategy discussed pre-
viously and will provide additional considerations for
the harvest management strategy which will be dis-
cussed in a later section..
7.4 DISTRIBUTION/ACCESS STRATEGY
7.4.1 Strategy and Tactics
There are several ADF&G projects for sport fish
enhancement which involve stocks already accounted
for in other previously discussed projects,and these
additional projects concern themselves with the distri-
bution of those stocks and harvester access to them.
Therefore,the following projects deal with new har-
vest opportunities,not additional fish.The tactics
used in this strategy are:
•research local conditions
•improve harvest site access
•stock
7.4.2 Projects
7.4.2.1 little Susitna River
Coho Salmon Enhancement
The object of this project is to provide a harvest
of 10,000 late run coho salmon which will result in
an estimated 20,000 man-days of additional recrea-
tional fishing opportunity.
In addition to improving the Burma Road access
to lower portions of the Little Susitna River,it will be
necessary to determine magnitude,distribution and
timing of all segments of the escapement.Identifica-
tion of various adult capture and juvenile release sites
will include study of lakes of the Nancy Lake Recrea-
tion Area,including Nancy Lake.Subsequently,there
will be determination of optimum smolt release size,
age,timing and locations,and assessment of the con-
tribution to the recreational fisheries of the Little
Susitna River.Finally,there will be evaluation of the
effect of coho salmon plants on other rearing species,
i.e.,king,sockeye,etc.King salmon enhancement
may be practical in this system if it can be demon-
strated that such a program does not conflict with the
primary goal of coho salmon production (See Section
7.4.2.2).
7.4.2.2 little Susitna River
King Salmon Enhancement
The object of this project is to provide a harvest
of 6,000 king salmon which will result in an esti-
mated 30,000 man-days of additional recreational op-
portunity.The requirements and procedures would be
the same as were outlined in Section 7.4.2.1.
7.4.2.3 Early Russian River
Sockeye Salmon Enhancement
This presently unfunded project would provide an
additional harvest of 20,000 sockeye salmon to satis-
fy 33,000 man-days of effort.It would initiate stu-
dies on the types of sockeye salmon egg incubation
systems or flood bypass systems that would provide
stable fry production from Upper Russian Creek.The
early run of Russian River sockeye salmon has been
-
EXHIBIT-GG
I
I
I
I
I
I
_.-.1
",.
DEVELOPING PROJECTS
,/.-'-
f
I
./
I'
"
I
I
I,V·,
I,I
I:i
/
I:
1 PACKERS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
2 LEISURE LAKE FISH PASS
3 ISLAND CREEK CLEARANCE
4 DOGFISH BAY CREEK CLEARANCE
5 WINDY RIGHT CREEK CLEARANCE
6 ANDERSON BEACH CLEARANCE
7 PORTAGE PONDS DEVELOPMENT
8 SIX MILE CREEK RUN DEVELOPMENT
9 RUSSIAN RIVER FLOW BYPASS
10 RESURRECTION BAY REARING PONDS
11 BULL DOG COVE CLEARANCE
12 PORCUPINE COVE CLEARANCE
13 TWO ARM BAY CLEARANCE
14 NUKA ISLAND CLEARANCE
15 PORT DICK IMIDDLE)CREEK CLEARANCE
16 GORE POINT LAKE CLEARANCE
17 ROCKY RIVER CLEARANCE
68
SUSPECTED P'ROJECTS
./--
1 KIRSCHNER LAKE STREAM RECHANNELIZATION
2 STRIKE CREEK FISH LADDER
3 BIRCH HILL HATCHERY
4 RESURRECTION BAY ODD-YEAR PINK/CHUM DEVELOPMENT
5 NINILCHIK NATIVE ASSOCIATION HATCHERY
6 BRADLEY LAKE HATCHERY
7 DELIGHT LAKE HATCHERY
8 NUKA BAY HATCHERY
9 PORT DICK IMIDDLE CREEK)DEVELOPMENT
10 PORT CHATHAM FISH PASS
69
EXHJBIT-HH
selected by the Trail Lakes broodstock planning team
as a primary brood stock for the hatchery.
7.4.2.4 Willow Creek
Coho and King Salmon Enhancement
This project will provide a harvest of 6,000 king
salmon and 6,000 coho salmon which will result in an
estimated 42,000 man-days of additional fishing op-
portunity,but it is contingent upon development of an
access road along the lower portion of Willow Creek
to its junction with the Susitna River.
Besides improving access to the mouth of Willow
Creek by road-boat launch construction,it will be
necessary to identify various adult and juvenile
release sites.Optimum smolt and/or fingerling stock-
ing densities,sizes and release times must be deter-
mined;and then there must be evaluation of enhance-
ment contributions to Willow Creek fishery and to
fisheries of the Deshka River and Alexander Creek
(downstream Susitna River tributaries).Finally,there
will be an evaluation of the effects of king salmon
enhancement on the system's coho salmon popula-
tion.Coho salmon enhancement may be practical in
this system,if it can be demonstrated that such a pro-
gram does not conflict with the primary goal of king
salmon enhancement.
7.4.2.5 Caswell Creek
Coho Salmon Enhancement
This project will provide a harvest of 6,000 late
run coho salmon which will result in an estimated
12,000 man-days of additional recreational fishing
opportunity;and to evaluate harvest and catch distri-
butions at·the mouths of downstream Susitna River
tributaries.
The magnitude,distribution and timing of all seg-
ments of the escapement into the system will be de-
termined;and various a9u1t capture and juvenile re-
lease sites will be identified.Optimum fry and/or
smolt release densities,size,age and timing must be
determined.These studies must include,but not be
limited to,evaluation of lotic and lentic releases,fry-
fingerling versus smolt releases and accelerated
versus full-term smolt releases.Finally,there should
be assessment of the contribution of enhanced coho
salmon to the Caswell Creek fishery and to fisheries
of the lower Susitna River.
7.4.2.6 Resurrection Bay
Coho Salmon Enhancement
This project will provide an additional harvest of
10,000 coho salmon to satisfy 20,000 man-days of
effort.It will involve determination of the optimal
coho salmon fry stocking density for rehabilitated
Bear Lake and the optimal coho salmon smoll release
size and timing for the Seward Lagoon and Resurrec-
tion -Bay tributary streams.It will require construction
of a rearing pond system in the lower Resurrection
River area to utilize coho salmon fry·"downstream
drift."The feasibility.of increasing the stocked coho
salmon fry to smolt production in Bear Lake by em-
ploying artificial fertilization methods must be investi-
gated.
7.4.2.7 Early Kenai River
King Salmon Enhancement'"
This project will provide an additional harvest of
_5,000 king salmon to satisfy 25,000 man-days of
effort.Optimal king salmon smolt release size and tim-
70
ing must be determined.Additionally,a trap has been
constructed in the lower Kenai River to assess supple-
mental king salmon production utilizing tag and
recovery methods.
7.4.2.8 Knik Arm Tributaries
Coho Salmon Enhancement
This project,which includes Fish,Cottonwood
and Wasilla Creeks,will provide a harvest of 9,000
late run coho salmon which will result in an estimated
18,000 man-days of additional fishing and oppor-
tunity to develop and evaluate various coho salmon
enhancement practices.
The magnitude,distribution and timing of all seg-
ments of the escapement into Cottonwood and Wa-
silla Creeks must be determined;and various adult
capture and juvenile release sites identified.Optimal
fry and/or smolt release densities,size,age and timing
will be determined.These studies must include,but
not be limited to evaluation of lotic versus lentic re-
leases,fry-fingerling versus smolt releases and accel-
erated versus full-term smolt releases.The contribu-
tion of enhanced stocks to the recreational fisheries of
the respective systems will be evaluated.There will
be an evaluation of the effect of coho salmon plants
on other species.Emphasis should be directed toward
interactions between sockeye salmon and rainbow
trout.Coho salmon production must not significantly
interfere with or impact the enhancement of Fish
Creek sockeye salmon.
7.4.2.9 Late Kenai River
Coho Salmon Enhancement
This project will provide an additional harvest of
10,000 coho salmon to satisfy 20,000 man-days of
effort.It will require identification of major concentra-
tion areas of late run spawning coho salmon for brood
stock development and determination of optimal coho
salmon smolt release size and timing.
7.4.3 Summary
This strategy is very closely related to the pre-
viously discussed rehabilitation/enhancement stra-
tegy,with the added element that it is directed at
enhancing site-specific harvest opportunities.These
nine projects would contribute to meeting the sport
fishing pressure and to distributing that pressure
somewhat more widely.
7.5 HARVEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
7.5.1 Strategy and Tactics
The principal harvest management strategy is to
manage for the preservation and enhancement of the
wild stocks,and to this end the primary tactic is to
achieve the proper escapements in the major spawn-
ing systems.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the
harvest management strategy is that it is directed at
the user rather than at the salmon.Secondly,of all of
the strategies it is the only one which is the sole
province of the Department of Fish and Game.
The most prominent tactics employed in the har-
vest management strategy in Cook Inlet are:
•imposition of fishing periods
•invocation of emergency closures
•invocation of emergency openings
•escapement monitoring
•implementation of test fishing
•establishment of bag limits
•establishment of user licensing
•limitation of entry into the fishery
•imposition of gear specifications
•closing of open areas
•opening of closed areas
In some forms these tactics may be applied over a
long period of time as in the case of restricting certain
types of gear to certain fishing districts,or they may
be very specific and immediate as in the case of emer-
gency closures.
There is a very direct relationship between the
harvest management tactics and the extent of specific
knowledge about the salmon stocks which are being
harvested.The greater the knowledge the more pre-
cise the application of these tactics can become.
7.5.2 Projects
7.5.2.1 Escapement Monitoring
This tactic,which is the cornerstone of the har-
vest management strategy,is evidenced in an ongoing
set of projects in the four major sockeye salmon pro-
ducing river systems in the Inlet,the Kasilof,Kenai,
Susitna and Crescent rivers.Sonar counters are set up
and manned annually on these four systems,and it is
assumed that proper escapements into these four sys-
tems can be extrapolated to mean that the lesser
systems are probably achieving appropriate escape-
ments.
7.5.2.2 In-season Effort and Catch Monitoring
This project has several diverse elements all de-
signed to improve the management of the salmon
fishery in Upper Cook Inlet.The Commercial Fish Divi-
sion would provide in-season estimates of effort and
catch by the set gill netters and the drift gill netters by
means of vehicle surveys on the eastside set nets and
aerial catch estimating surveys of the drift fleet.
These data can be supplemented through daily con-
tact with processors and weekly collection of the fish
.tickets.This estimating would be refined to the level
of period-by-period estimates on a district-by-district
basis.Clear in-season marking of the sub-district
boundaries on the west side of the Inlet would be a
necessary correlary to complete the information
gathering.
7.5.2.3 Upper Cook Inlet Central District
Test Fishing
Large concentrations of sockeye salmon enter the
Inlet and mill in the lower portion of the district in the
middie part of July.This situation enhances the man-
agement problems which are inherent in the mixed
stock fishery.Experience during 1979 showed that
limited test fishing by drift gill netters during closed
periods allowed more accurate monitoring of the
movement of these stocks.In turn,the managers
were better able to set the appropriate fishing times
and areas for attainment of escapement goals.
7.5.2.4 Upper Cook Inlet Stock Separation
This project also addresses the management
problems posed by the mixed stock nature of the sal-
mon fishery in Upper Cook Inlet.It is keyed to the
ability to identify the various sockeye salmon stocks,
to determine the portion of each stock that is being
harvested,and ultimately to assure that escapement
goals are attained on a stock-by-stock basis.
Sockeye salmon from the commercial catch as
71
well as from the escapement are sampled for scales,
length,and weight.Through a scale recognition pat-
tern the Statewide Scale Lab can identify the stocks
being f'fandled.Under special conditions termed "criti-
cal",this identification can be expedited;and the
stock identity will be in the hands of the field manager
within twenty-four hours of the sampling.
This continuing project ai9s'in the regulation of
the fishery,helps to identify the strength of each of
the component stocks and relates distribution to the
harvest process.
7.5.2.5 Off-shore Test Fishing
This project has been set up to provide early in-
formation on the sockeye salmon runs and enable the
managers to adjust their day-to-day management ac-
cordingly.The catches from a vessel fishing a tran-
sect between Anchor Point and the Red River are
analyzed,and the results are integrated with the
results of the commercial catch and the escapement
monitoring to create a broad profile of the timing and
run strength of the Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon.
7.5.2.6 Humpy Creek Weir
This project would allow more accurate assess-
ment of the escapement to a major spawning stream
in Lower Cook Inlet.The manner in which returning
salmon behave in the vicinity of Humpy Creek neces-
sitates constant monitoring.Movement of fish
upstream seems to begin slowly,builds to an ex-
tremely rapid migration and then tapers off.It is dur-
ing the time that the large numbers of salmon are
moving upstream that a more accurate evaluation of
numbers would be beneficial.The critical aspect in-
volves proper timing of fishery openings.A weir
would allow the best possible management of this
specific resource.
7.5.2.7 Kachemak Bay Salmon and Shellfish
Subsistence Catch Monitoring
This project would monitor the salmon subsis-
tence fishery and the increasing shellfish subsistence
fishery in Kachemak Bay to provide data for future
management decisions concerning various species of
fish and shellfish.From the perspective of the salmon
resource,the primary objective of the program will be
to monitor the salmon subsistence harvest to deter-
mine the quantity and species of incidentally caught
fish.Standard creel census techniques will be estab-
lished to monitor the fishery primarily in the vicinity of
the Homer Spit.Data g~thered on harvest and number
of participants will be used to assess the adequacy of
present regulations governing the fisheries and the
need for future regulatory adjustments.
7.5.2.8 English Bay-Port Graham Monitoring
This project would monitor the early subsistence
fishery in the villages of Pott Graham and English Bay,
and a weir operation on the English Bay Lakes system
would insure that adequate sockeye and coho salmon
escapements are achieved.The weir portion of this
project would be a 5 to 10-year program.During this
time period,run timing,run characteristics and rela-
tionship of actual weir escapements to aerial surveys
will be determined for various run strengths.Subse-
quently,aerial surveys can be used for escapement
counting and monitoring.The subsistence catch moni-
toring will be an annual program that will provide
accurate and timely subsistence catch data for in-
season management of the salmon resource.
7.5.3 Summary
The eight projects just described represent ongo-
ing efforts to refine the ability to recognize and
manage effectively the various salmon stocks which
are part of the mixed stock fishery in Cook Inlet.This
work must be closely coordinated with the efforts ex-
pended under the other strategies,particularly the
rehabilitation/enhancement strategy.
7.6 HABITAT PROTECTION STRATEGY
7.6.1 Strategies and Tactics
This strategy is apparently the most removed
from dealing directly with the salmon stocks.It in-
volves the systematic and long-term concern for the
preservation of the quality and quantity of the re-
quired supporting habitat.It is based on the premise
that suitable habitat is an essential long-term compo-
nent of salmon enhancement.
All tactics involved in support of this strategy are
variations of one of the following:
•acquisition of the habitat
•categorization of the habitat for purposes
of setting use conditions e.g.wetlands or
critical habitat
•invocation of a special protective status
e.g.refuge
•institution of public awareness programs
•increase regulatory enforcement
•Conservation of existing habitat through
project review and permitting
•Increased monitoring of ongoing develop-
mental activities
At the core of the success of this strategy is a
screening mechanism that detects habitat alterations
or the potential for them,evaluates the action and
suggests the appropriate response.
7.6.2 Programs
Essentially all agencies mentioned throughout the
Plan play some role in habitat protection.The Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation is involved
in pollution control,and the Department of Natural Re-
sources has control over water appropriations.The
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,.;The U.S.Forest Ser-
vice and the National Park Service all have land use
restrictions governing activities on lands over which
they exercise control.In addition,the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service,National Marine Fisheries Service,
Environmental Protection Agency,and State resource
agencies are active through cooperative agreement
with the U.S.Army,Corps of Engineers,in its admin-
istration of the Section ~04 wetlands and Section 10
navigable waters permitting programs.CIAA is active
in public education concerning the need for habitat
protection and in supporting efforts to secure that
protection.
The most complete program of habitat protf3ction
currently in effect in the Inlet is under the direction of
the Habitat Division of the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.The Habitat Division has permit issuing
authority and controls all activities in anadromous
72
streams.It issues permits for activities on State Game
Refuges,Critical Habitat Areas,and State Game Sanc-
tuaries and monitors activities in streams.
The concerns of the Habitat Division fall into five
broad categories:projects review and permitting for
anadromous streams,State Game Refuges,Critical
Habitat Areas,and State Game Sanctuaries;resource
assessment;coastal management;major energy de-
velopment review including oil and gas,coal,hydro-
electric and petrochemicals;and major land actions
including disposals,trades,easements,and convey-
ances.
Specific activities that are of concern to the Habi-
tat Division and,therefore,also warrant the consider-
ation and interest of the Regional Planning Team are
widespread and diverse in nature.
Logging operations may result in significant habi-
tat destruction without the proper safeguards,and
such operations are or have recehtly been in effect in
Tyonek,Rocky Bay and Windy Bay.
Placer mining,which is particularly prevalent on
the west side of the Inlet,may also lead to loss of
salmon habitat.
Strip mining and various forms of gravel extrac-
tion pose considerable threats to salmon habitat.Po-
tential development of the Beluga coal field has been
mentioned in earlier chapters.In addition to Beluga,
coal strip mining is also proposed in the Yentna and
Skwentna drainages.
Dams such as those proposed in Devil Canyon
and on the Eagle River and/or water appropriations
such as those discussed at Ship Creek and in the
Kenai River should another petrochemical plant be
sited in the area may also have measurable negative
effects on the salmon populations.
The discharge of wastewater into any body of
water may significantly alter its chemistry to the detri-
ment of local salmon populations.
New tracts are still coming up for lease for oil and
gas development in the Inlet watershed and in the.
Inlet itself.This is,at least,a cause for continuing
vigilance,if not concern.
Finally,continuing land disposal guarantees a
continuous change in the status and use of tracts of
land throughout the watershed.The accelerated ex-
ploitation of agricultural,mineral,and timber re-
sources of State,Federal,and privately owned lands
will cause impacts to fishery resources within the
drainage.The Cook Inlet Basin will continue to be the
major population center of the State.Continued devel-
opment of lands for urbanization will cause additional
losses of salmon habitat.
7.7 SUMMARY
This listing of projects should certainly not be
considered the definitive listing of all available pro-
jects within the Inlet drainage.It is,however,an iden-
tification of those which have come to the fore at this
time.It represents a broad approach to the salmon
enhancement effort on the part of several key agen-
cies and associations.It is a promising start for a
greater and more focused effort in the next twenty
years.
APPEN·DIX...
APPENDICES
".".-
GLOSSARY
ADF&G -Alaska Department of Fish and Game
chinook salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha or the king salmon.
chum salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
keta or dog salmon.
CIAA -Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
CIRPT -Cook Inlet Regional Planning Team
coho salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
kisutch or silver salmon.
development -Development describes all actions
taken to establish a fishery in a location which has
no prior record of supporting a fishery.
dog salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
keta or chum salmon.
enhancement -Enhancement describes procedures
applied to a stock already at natural capacity which
are designed to supplement the numbers of harvest-
able fish to a level beyond that which could natur-
ally be produced.This may be accomplished
through employment of artificial or semi-artificial
production systems or the increase of the amount
of productive habitat in the natural environment
through physical or chemical modification.
escapement -Escapement refers to those fish in a
spawning run which "escape"all fisheries to return
upstream to spawn in either a spawning ground or a
hatchery.
ex-vessel price -This is the per pound price paid to
the commercial fisherman for his catch.
fingerling -This is a designation given to young sal-
mon which have doubled their emergence weight
but have not begun their seaward migration.
F.R.E.D.-Fisheries Rehabilitation,Enhancement and
Development
fry -This is a young salmon which has emerged from
the gravel but has not yet doubled its emergence
weight.
goals -For this plan goals are broad statements of
what the Planning Team hopes to see accomplished
within the twenty-year life of the Plan.They are the
identification of specifically larger numbers of total
fish,the delineation of data deficiencies which will
require defined research efforts,and the expres-
sions of overall perspectives on the future of the
salmon resources.
humpy salmon -This a synonym for Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha or pink salmon.
king salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha or chinook salmon.
median -When a group of values is arranged in order
from the highest to the lowest,the median is the
middle value.Half of all the values are above it,and
half are below.It is not as influenced by a few very
high or few very low values as the average is.
mixed stock fishery -This expression describes the
harvest of fish in a location and at a time during
which stocks are intermingled.
natural production -Natural production occurs when
fish spawn,hatch,and rear without human
intervention,i.e.,in a natural stream or lake envi-
ronment.It should be noted when a previously
manipulated stock reaches the point where it is self-
perpetuating,it becomes natural production.
objectives -For this plan objectives are specific state-
ments of work to be accomplished in relatively
short periods of time.The sum of the successful
completion of each of the objectives will equal at-
tainment of the larger goals.
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha -This is the scientific name
for the chum or dog salmon.
Oncorhynchus keta -This is the scientific name for
the chum or dog salmon.
Oncorhynchus kisutch -This is the scientific name for
coho or silver salmon.
Oncorhynchus nerka -This is the scientific name for
the red or sockeye salmon.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha -This is the scientific
name for the king or chinook salmon.
,pink salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha or humpy.
red salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
nerka or sockeye salmon.
rehabilitation -Rehabilitation describes procedures ap-
plied to a depressed stock which are directed
toward maximizing the naturally occuring salmon
production habitat for the purpose of restoring de-
pressed natural stocks to previously harvestable
levels.
run -Run describes a group of salmon generally dis-
tinguished by species and the time of year which
they pass through the Inlet.
silver salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhynchus
kisutch or coho salmon.
smolt -This is a young salmon which has completed
its freshwater rearing period and is migrating down-
stream to an estuarine environment.
sockeye salmon -This is a synonym for Oncorhyn-
chus nerka or red salmon.
stock -Stock describes a group of salmon generally
distinguished by a discrete combination of species,
spawning location,and perhaps genetic similarity.
strategy -This is a general statement of priority or
mission that guides more specific actions.
supplemental stocks -Supplemental stocks are those
\which are annually introduced to a given system at
any of a number of stages and would not be present
without the active human participation.
user group -This is a group identified by the method
of and/or the reason for the harvest of salmon
(commercial,sport,or subsistence).
wild stock -This expression describes stocks which
have no history of human intervention (see "natural
production").
LITERATURE CITED
1.Selkregg,Lidia L.,Coordinator,Alaska Regional
Profiles,Vol.1 (Southcentral Region),Anchor-
age,University of Alaska Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center,1974.
2.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Catalog of
Waters Important for Spawning &Migration of
Anadromous Fishes,(Region 2 &4),1968,
Rev.1975.
3.Meiners,A.,Alaska Division of Parks,Personal
Communication,1981.
4.U.S.Bureau of the Census,Current Population
Reports,Series P25,No.815,Washington,
1979.
5.Kenai Peninsula Borough,Special Census of the
Population,Growth Monitoring Program Special
Report No.1,Soldotna,March,1979.
6.Scott,Michael J.,and Staff,Institute of Social
and Economic Research,Southcentral Alaska's
Economy and Population,1965-2025:A Base
Study and Projections (Report of the Economics
Task Force to the Alaska Water Study Commit-
tee),Anchorage,Fairbanks,Juneau (University
of Alaska),January,1979.
7.Stanek,R.,Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Personal Communication,1981.
8.Harmer,Dale L.,Economic Characteristics of
Sport Fishing in Alaska:A Summary of the Re-
sults of the 1973 Alaska Sport Fishing Survey,
Seattle,Boeing Computer Services,Inc.,1974.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska Salmon
Fisheries Plan,provisional draft for review and com-
ment,October,1975.
Alaska Magazine,The Milepost,The.Alaska Journal
and Alaska Geographic,Editors of,Facts About
Alaska:The Alaska Almanac,vol.1,Anchorage,
Alaska Northwest Publishing Co.,May,1976.
Alaska,University of,Alaska Sea Grant Program,
1979 Fisherman's Income Survey,Herring and
Salmon Fisheries,Report 80-5,Fairbanks,septem-
ber,1980.
Burger,C.,United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Personal Communication,1981.
9.Brogan,Michael Allen,An Economic Analysis of
the Cook Inlet Resurrection Bay Sport Salmon
Fisheries,Fairbanks,Alaska,Institute of Agri-
cultural Sciences,University of Alaska,1974.
10.Yancey,Robert M.and Fredrik V.Thorsteinson,
The King Salmon of Cook Inlet,Alaska,Wash-
ington,D.C.,United States Fish and Wildlife
Service,1963.
11.Dinneford,E.,Commercial Fish Entry Commis-
sion,Personal Communication,1981.
12.Wilson,R.G.and Associates,Cook Inlet Fishery
Economic Study,Anchorage,Richard G.Wilson
and Associates,1978.
13.Vanderbrink,H.,Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,Personal Communication,1981.
14.Middleton,K.,Cook Inlet Stock Status Report,
unpub.ADF&G Report,1981.
15.Engel,L.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
16.F.R.E.D.Division,Directive No.3,Standard As-
sumptions on Salmon Survivals (Unmarked
fish).1978.
17.Sport Fish Division,ADF&G,Plan for Supple-
mental Production of Salmon and Steelhead for
Cook Inlet Recreational Fisheries,unpub.draft,
1981.
Dudiak,N.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
Edfelt,Larry,Statistical History of Alaska Salmon
Catches,Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Technical Data Report No.9,Juneau,1973.
Flagg,L.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Per-
sonal Communication,1981.
____,An Economic Survey of the Cook Inlet
Salmon Fishery,Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Informational Leaflet Number 145,Juneau,
June 1,1970.
Johnston,Richard S.,and W.Robert Wood,A De-
mand Analysis for Canned Red (Sockeye)Salmon at
Wholesale - A Progress Report.
Joint Southeast Alaska Regional Planning Teams,
Comprehensive Salmon Plan for Southeast Alaska,
Phase 1,Draft for Review,March,1980.
Kenai Peninsula Borough,Port and Harbor Demand
and Feasibility Project,Woodward-Clyde Consul-
tants and Soros Associates,April,1980.
Kenai Peninsula Borough,Special Census of the Pop-
ulation,Growth Monitoring Program Special Report
No.1,Soldotna,March,1979.
League of Women Voters of Alaska,Know Your State
Alaska,A Survey of the government of the State of
Alaska,League of Women Voters Education Fund,
Washington,D.C.,1968,Rev.1972.
Leonard Lane Associates,Table of Contents for Re-
gional Plans,August 23,1979.
McLean,Robert F.and Kevin J.Delaney,Compilers,
Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,Volumes I and II,Tacoma,
Print Northwest,1978.
McLean,Robert F.,Kevin J.Delaney,Beverly'A.
Cross,A Fish and Wildlife Resource Inventory of the
Cook Inlet -Kodiak Areas,Vol.2,Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game for Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Program -Division of Policy Development and
Planning,1 977.
McMullen,John C.,and Mark Kissel,F.R.E.D.Report
to the Board of Fisheries,Juneau,November,
1979.
McMullen,John C.,and Mark Kissel,1980 Annual
Report,Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,En-
hancement and Development IF.R.E.D.),Juneau,
January,1981.
Madden,J.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
Miller and Associates,Inc.,Leonard Lane and Associ-
ates,and Mr.William R.Wilkerson,Attorney,Law
Firm of Eisenhower,Carlson,Newlands,Rehan,
Henriot and Quinn,An Analysis of the Alaskan Sal-
mon Fishery,August 30,1979.
Mills,M.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Per-
sonal Communication,1981.
____,"Statewide Harvest Study,"in Alaska
Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies,Sport Fish
Division,Vol.20,Study SW-1-A,July 1,1978 -
June 30,1979.
____,"Statewide Harvest Study,"in Alaska
Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies,Sport Fish
Division,Vol.21,Study SW-1-A,July 1,1979 -
June 30,1980.
Owers,James E.,"Income Estimates and Reasonable
Returns in Alaska's Salmon Fisheries,"in Fishery
Bulletin,Vol.75,No.3,1977 .
Reardon,Jim,Status of the Cook Inlet -Resurrection
Bay Commercial Salmon Fishery,1965,Homer,
Alaska,1965.
Reynolds,S.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1 981 .
Sanders,G.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
Schroeder,T.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1 98'1 .
Scully,David R.,Larry S.Leveen and Raymond S.
George,Surface Water Records of Cook Inlet Basin,
Alaska,through September,1975,United States
Department of the Interior Geological Survey,An-
chorage,1978.
Sheridan,William L.,Summary of Recent Knowledge
of Certain Factors Influencing Survival of Salmon in
Freshwater,Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Biological Research,Information Leaflet
No.3,November,1961.
State Members of the Governor's Agency Advisory
Committee on Leasing,A Social,Economic and En-
vironmental Analysis of a State Oil and Gas Lease
Sale in Upper Cook Inlet (A Report to Jay S.Ham-
mond,Governor of Alaska),Juneau,January,
1981.
State Members of the Governor's Agency Advisory
Committee on Leasing,A Social,Economic and En-
vironmental Analysis of a State Oil and Gas Lease
Sale in Lower Cook Inlet,(preliminary draft of a Re-
port to Jay S.Hammond,Governor of Alaska),
Juneau,March,1981.
Steinhoff,Harold W.,"Communicating Complete
Wildlife Values of Kenai"in Transactions of the
Thirty-sixth North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference,Washington,D.C.,The
Wildlife Management Institute,1971.
____,Values of Wildlife and Related Recreation
on the Kenai National Moose Range,College,Alas-
ka,1969.
Stratton,L.,et ai,Chugach Region Community Sub-
sistence Profiles,Anchorage,Alaska,1 981 .
Swan,C.,Subsistence Research Project Kenaitze In-
dian Tribe,Kenai,Alaska,September 15,1981.
Tarbox,K.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
Traski,L.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1981.
Wilson,Richard G.and Associates,Cook Inlet Fishery
Economic Study,Preliminary Report to the Cook
Inlet Commercial Fishermen's Council,Anchorage,
December 1,1978.
Van Ray,L.,United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Personal Communication,1 981 .
Wangaard,D.,United States Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice,Personal Communication,1981.
Yanagawa,C.,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Personal Communication,1 981 .
..
t IHNrlitffltfl'rllt\!trztz
~
l
\
!
I
\
i
I
I
I
\
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
SPECIAL NOTE:
The full text of this appendix,which includes all
of the written and oral comments and the responses,
the complete draft distribution list and other material
related to the public participation program,is a part of
the Final Draft Cook Inlet Regional Salmon Enhance-
ment Plan 1981-2000.It is,therefore,a matter of
public record at the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game in Juneau,Alaska;and it was part of the Plan
which received the approval of the Commissioner of
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.The text,
which appears below,is a summary of that material
prepared especially for this widely distributed edition
of the Plan.
In late July,1981,over 260 copies of a Review
Draft were distributed throughout the Cook Inlet wa-
tershed,to appropriate Department offices in Juneau
and to additional agencies and individuals by specific
request.The distribution list included the Board of
Directors of the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association,
all area offices of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game,all Fish and Game Advisory Boards,all area
libraries,native associations,municipalities,commer-
cial fishermen's organizations,sport fishing organiza-
tions and federal agencies.
The availability of the Review Draft and the up-
coming public meetings were advertised widely on
local radio,through feature stories in regional news-
papers,and through both legal and display advertise-
ments in newspapers.
On August 19 and 20 public meetings were held
in Soldotna and Anchorage,respectively.The com-
plete Team membership attended the public meetings
to receive comments.
The comment period was held open until Septem-
ber 15 to receive additional written comments.The
Regional Planning Team met on September 22 to
review all comments and to decide on the appropriate
response to each.
A total of 39 responses to the Review Draft were
received;and of those,36 either approved the Plan
outright or approved it with modifications that were
acceptable to the Regional Planning Team.
The diversity of respondents is worthy of note.
They included commercial fishermen's organizations,
sports fishing organizations,fish and game advisory
boards,native organizations,municipalities,federal
agencies,the University of Alaska,Alaska Department
of Fish and Game headquarters staff,the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association and individuals.
The appropriate revisions were made in the text
of the document,and the full text of each of the com-
ments as well as the Team's response were included
in the appendix.This completed the work on the Final
Draft of the Plan.
After a final review by the Regional Planning
Team,the Final Draft Cook Inlet Regional Salmon En-
hancement Plan 19B 1-2000 was forwarded to the
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game for his review and approval on November 4.
During this review period,three additional com-
ments were received.All three comments suggested
modifications but supported the general positions set
forth in the Plan.
The Regional Planning Team met on January 27
to consider these comments and agreed to the major-
ity of the modifications suggested.
In a letter from the Commissioner dated February
19 and reproduced at the front of this document the
Plan was approved.
SPORT FISH SURVE,Y
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Dear Alaska SpDrt Fishe~Q:
We have not yet received YDur cowpleeed 1980 Alaaka Sport-"Fishing Survey
fDrm.If you have nDt yet returned it tD us,please cowplete the enclDsed
fDrm and return it in the postsge-psid envelope that is prDvided fDr your
use.
Plesse do not underestimate the impDrtance Df your fishing activities.YDU
have been chDsen as part of a representstive ss-.ple Df Alaskan sport
fishermen and the infDrmatiDn that you can prDvide is vital tD the success
Df this study,and ~y have a significant impact Dn the future ~Q8ge.ent
Df Alaska's sport fish resources.
If you have already returned YDur questionnaire.please disregard this
letter and accept Dur sincere thanks.
Sincerely,
EnclDsure
INSTRUCTIONS:
1.Questions apply to all members of your household.
2.If more than one member of your Q.ousehold received a copy of this
questionnaire,you need to fill cut only one questionuaire,but to
avoid repeated m.ilings,please return all.
3.Please answer the general questions on page 2.
4.If members of your household sport fished during 1980,please fill out
the remaining pages which cover the areas you sport fished.The maps
on pages 3,11,and 21 will help you find the pages which deal with
those areas.If no members of your housebold sport fished during 1980,
please return your questionuaire ia the enclosed postale-paid envelope
after answering the questions on page 2.
5.If you cannot,r_ber exactly how IIUch you sport fished or how lllany
fish you caugbt,please estimate as closely as you can.Do not count
co-.ercially-caught or subsistence-caught fish.
6.Please return your c~leted questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid
envelope.
Thanks for helping us help you.
'1-
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1.How many members of your household purchased an Alaska Sport Fishing license
during 19807
2.How many ~bers of your household ~the age of 16 sport fished in Alaaka
in 19807
3.How many members of your houaehold.16 years of age or older sport fished
in Alaska during 1980?
4.What do you rec.,....nd to improve sport fishing in Alaska?
·2·
'WI'"
II.GLENNALLEN,ALL WATERS AND ORAINAGES OF THE OSHETNA RIVER AND THE COPPER RIVER UPSTREAM FROM A
LINE BETWEEN THE SOUTH BANK OF HALEY CREEK AND THE SOUTH BANK OF CANYON CREEK IN
WOODS CANYON.ANO INCLUDING THE UPPER SUSITNA RIVER DRAINAGE FROM ITS CONFLUENCE WITH
THE OSHETNA RIVER.
1.Mlrk the number of dev••pent.port fi1hing.'In the exemgle,I m..fished 5 deyo (count Iny pert of I dey eo the whole dey)Ind
hi.son fi.hed with him 3 Df thD"deV'."S"(5+31 i.en_in the ......
2.FDr leeh vlrietV Df fi.h.mark the number caught Ind kePt.In the IXlmgle.2 burbot ond 2 like trout WIrI co ....Ind k.",.by
tl'let hOll.hold.{PlUM note mit many ti:lh It.C1111~by different nlm.:king·chinook;coho •til...:rid -1OCk1l'\l'1;pi'ilk •
humpbeck.;chum·dog.l '
J
f_____--1
LonO-PotIvV~0_
0..,.Soo-run 1_...Rainbow ~Arct:ic
Fi....KI"9 em.ceno R...Trou.T'....5,..._ArCl1cOW ar-vttng --B..-
Example
Gulkan,River
Lake Louise.
Lake Susitn.r
TVDne Lake
Van ISil_1 Lab
Paxson Lake
S<"mmi.Lab
Strelnl Lab
Sa.olpin Lake
CrDSSWlnd Lake
Hudmn Lakl
Qlhor Wlun:l......tyl
·12-
The survey form includes separate pages similar to the one above for the
following areas.
Knik Arm Drainage
Anchorage Area
East Side Susitna Drainage
West Side Cook Inlet -West Side Susitna River Drainages
Kenai Peninsula
COMMERCIAL CATCH DATA
Historical catch of Cook Inlet salmon in numbers of fish by
species,1893-1980.11
Year King Sockeye Coho Pink Chwn Total
1893-30,000 170,000 34.000 ° °
234,000
1894 15,500 406.840 19.000 0 °441,340
1895 25,199 324,277 °° °
349,476
1896 18,076 309,863 27,600 37,800 0 393,339
1897 14,083 3'54,800 28,000 0 0 396,883
1898 16,389 551,168 83,412 0 0 650,969
1899 17,102 558,529 54,890 0 0 630,521
1900 26,683 585,309 20,000 0 0 631,992
1901 34,319 482,406 8,967 5,591 °531,283
1902 49,013 710,280 54,864 79,246 0 893,403
1903 66,023 564,189 58,968 0 0 689,180
1904 30,073 489,348 23,800 0 0 543,221
1905 17,668 95,547 0 °0 113,215
1906 22,420 225,506 93,485 64,1.00 0 405,511
1907 62,944 460,620 177,276 6,420 0 707,260
1908 33.774 670.774 94.930 375.140 0 1.174.624
1909 59,624 582,562 88,350 3,740 0 734,276
1910 49,028 840,187 79,702 217,666 1,318 1,187,901
1'11 55,845 1,249,154 97,909 iO,665 749 1.464.322
1912 47,06b ~,194,8a8 70,567 1,661,874 121,628 3,096,823
1 913 63,652 1 •.369,196 81,484 10,926 10,813 1.536,071
1914'47,554 1,472,829 189,341 1,255,798 39,905 3,004,427
1915 83,793 1,860,684 122,028 19,308 27,833 2,1 13,646
.1 916 62,895 1,699.323 209,978 1,682.672 128,322 3,783.,190
1917 65,499 1,659,907 60,776 54,286 78,468 1,918,936
t 91 B 34,a86 1,668,394 251,151 721,231 108,200 2,783,802
1919"23,801 943,694 172,855 43,447 54,333 I ,239,130
1920 39,563 1,314,916 302,353 445,524 97,541 2.199.897
1921 13,946 983,625 20,519 4,717 42,409 1,065,216
1922 31,OJv 860!O19 199,923 637,405 74,389 1,802,766
1923 29,911 1,099,465 142,926 39,146 23,481 1,334,929
1924 27,012 1,056,090 187,656 752,016 36,755 2,059,529
1925 51,033 1,S10~861 198,146 11 ,B2B 15,064 1,786,932
1926 75,620 1,999,720 353,1i3 586,054 118,455 3,133,022
1727 87,404 1,459,068 387,746 251,866 59,380 2,245,464
1928 69,895 1,172,959 522,509 568,052 101,086 2,434.491
1929 67,694 1,049,851 184,858 376,863 134,601 1,813.867
1930 72,317 917,882 499.475 1.022.679 99,630 2,610,983
1931 51,402 805,526 328,294 472,221 62,628 '~i20,071
1932 70,931 '~131,959 374,976 4-il,125 64,749 2.083,739
1933 59,281 1,336,135 187,972 118,187 57,245 1,758,820
1934 72,379 1,815,267 251,260 929,992 91,319 3,160,217
1935 75~Oi'5 1,355,787 170,438 430.540 161.424 2,193,2~4
'"
Year King Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total
1936 aI ,062 2,390,281 328,490 852,924 264,909 3,917,672
1937 85,982 1,581,183 215,700 487.692 148.869 2.519.426
1138 57,663 2,425,253 213,B04 845,i33 191,328 3,i36.781
1939 52,726 2.334,904 163,010 319,312 231,645"3,101,59;
1940 63,016 1,648,952 478,096 2,604.235 280,831 5.075.130
1 941 104,822 1,293,234 359,224 715.211 272,345 2,744,836
1942 95,180 1,540,185 644,523 965,507 400,989 .3,646.684
1943 111,381 1,468,279 27',852 1 ,457,161 301,899 3.615.572
1944 85,210 1,939,932 256,621 1 ,815,441 258,840 4,356,044
1945 69.202 1,556.713"329,828 1,367.950 305,901 3,629,594
1946 64,281 1,474;473 581,374 1,338,731 383,563 3.842,422
1947 106,804 1,473,973 443.879 681,73 t 2i9,227 2,985,614
1948 105,996 2,035,306 408,079 1,.660,147 439,314 4,648,842
1949 111,281 2,153,213 279,701 433,003 238,646 3,215,844
1950 162,942 2,642,374 351,366 1 ,132,164 463,507 4,752,353
1951 157,513 2,481,346 254,715 417,485 292,293 3,663,352
1952 74,500 1,510,214 233,771 2,277,019 450,580 4,546.084
1953 89,430 1,490,062 227.612 550,073 536,639 2,893.B16
1954 65,325 1,246,672 336,685 2,460,051 ]i5,659 4.884,392
19S5 46,499 1,064,128 180,452 .1,286,008 317,053 2,894,140
1 956 ,SS,3iO t .21:.095 207.~34 i .an.295 870.269 4.241.503
1957 42,767 670,629 127,199 306.841 1~207,920 2,355,356
1958 22,84;496,842 241,561 2,598,314 596,179 3,955,743
1959 32,783 634,313 112,664 137,255 411 ,157 1,329,172
1960 27,539 948,040 314,153 2,023,252 776,079 4,059,·j63
1961 19",7i8 1,185,079 119,397 337,394 405,221 2,066,869
1962 20,270 1,172,859 358,051 4,960.030 1,149,841 7,661,051
1963 17,632 958,101 203,876 234,052 5..2.5,537 1 ,939.198
1964 4.622 990,709 462,114 4,287,378 1,402,4t9 7,147,242
1965 9,751 1,426,352 154,481 139,501 344,521 2,074.666
1966 9,603 1,867,323 295,101 2,585,82·0 660,887 5,418,734
1967 8,035 1,409,106 180,455 407,717 382,282 2,387,595
1968 4,600 1 ,200,146 475,333 2,863,638 1,194,248 5,737.965
1969 12,462 815,050 101,575 235,866 331,058 t,496,011
1970 8,455 753,526 280,156 1,388,179 999,325 3,429,641
Hi1 19,838 658,537 105,197 428,495 475.631 1,637,698
1972 16,174 937,721 83,167 657,243 705,691 2,399,996
1973 5,339 699,234 roo,521 633,587 783,086 2,227,767
1974 6,i/9 524,613 206,639 534,331 416,050 1,688,412
1 97:5 4,933 712,96')233,583-1,399,791 973,442 3,324,709
1976 ·11.317 1,722,309 211,926 1,393,189 520,629 3,859,370
1977 15,009 2,15~,078 195,847 1,846,337 1,379,511 5,590,782
1978 19,050 2,ns,S91 225,181 2,039,653 649.443 5,712,218
'1979 14,972 987,628 365,875 3,037,772 879,519 5,285.766
1980 12,898 1,650,752 296,276 2.765.882 461,931 5.187,i39
11 1979-1980;Preliminary Data.
DATA AND CALCULATIONS RELATED TO CHAPTERS 5 &6
1980 (ALL SUB-TOTAL AND TOTAL VALUES REDUCED TO X.XXX MILLION)THE "PRESENT"IS 1971 THROUGH
EVEN YEARS (COMMERCIAL CATCH)
SOCKEYE PINK
1972 937.721 657.2lt3
1974 524.613 524,331
1976 1.722.309 1.393.189
l~iD 2.•769;751 2.010.121
1980 1,650.822 2.757.859
TOTAL 7.605.216 7.342.743
AVERAGE 1.521.0lt3 1.1168.549
1.521 1.471
000 YEARS (COMMERCIAL CATCH)
SOCKEYE PINK
1971 658.537 428.495
1973 699.234 633.587
1975 712.960 1.399.791
1977 2.153.938 1.846,337
1979 999.423 3.073.988
TOTAL 5.224.092 7.382.198
AVERAGE 1.044.81B 1.1176.440
1.045 1.476
EVEN YEARS (SPORT CATCH)
SOCKEYE PINK
197B 105.532 105.446
1980 92.673 105.595
TOTAL 198.205 211.041
AVERAGE 99.103 105.521
0.009 0.106
ODD YEARS (SPORT CATCH)
SOCKEYE PINK
1977 62.363 45.4B4
1979 63.731 25,696
TOTAL 146.094 71.180
AVERAGE 73.047 35.590
0.073 0.036
EVEN YEARS (SUBSISTENCE CATCH)
SOCKEYE ·PINK
1972 15 75
1974 30 60
1976 67 1.626
197B 77 723
1980 5.4Bl 5.795
TOTAL 5.67 8.279
AVERAGE I,1~6 1.656
0.0 1 0.002
ODD YEARS (SUBSISTENCE CATCH)
SOCKEYE PINK
1971 16 44
1~73 53 96
1975 51 640
1977 59 642
1979 5.601 2,610
TOTAL 5.780 4.032
AVERAGE 1,156 B06
0.001 0.001
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
705.691 83.167 16.174 2,399.996
416.050 206,634 6.779 1,678,407
520.629 211,926 11.317 3.859.370
641.0B9 227,327 19.215 5.667.503
461.174 294.567 12.BiZ 5.177,321
2.744.633 1.023.626 66.3 18,782.597
54B.927 204.725 13.277 3.756.519
0.549 0.205 0.013 3.757
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
475.631 105.197 19.838 1.687.698
783.086 106.521 5.339-2.227.767
973.442 233.533 4.933 3.324.709
1.379.511 195.847 15.009 5.590.642
880.0B4 267.781 14.B53 5.236.129
4,491.754 908.929'59.972 lB.066.945
B98.351 IB1,786 11.994 3.613.389
0.898 0.182 0.012 3.613
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
lB.419 65.230 17.B56 312.482
6.154 96.0~2 16.806 317 ..260
24.573 161.2 2 34.662 629.742
12.287 86.631 17,331 314.781
0.012 O.OBI 0.017 0.315
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
2.287 51.907 16,:210 198,251
5.826 64,039 :25,853 185,145
8.113 115.946 4:2,063 383,396
4,057 57,973 :2 1.03:2 191,698
0.004 0.058 0.021 0.192
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
84 1.030 1 1.205
79 667 1 837
69 2,529 16 4.307
65 6.011 9 6.B85
518 7 12B ~21'Ui8i'5 ~2.329 3 ,
163 3,lt73 466 6,893
0.000 0.003 0.000 0.007
CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
7 1,697 2 1,766
77 1,636 0 1.862
153 2.619 5 3,468
....133 2.543 14 3.391
313 5.688 164 14'~Z668314,183 ----rss 2.3
137 2.B37 37 4,973
0.000 0.003 0.000 0.005
EVEN YEARS
SOCKEYE PINK CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
CoMMERC IAL 1.521 1.469 0.549 0.205 0.013 3.757SPORT0.099 0.106 0.012 0.081 0.017 .315SUBSISTENCE0.001 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.000 .006T:b.IT 1.577 Q.'5bi 0.289 0.030 Ti:078
ODD YEARS
SOCKEYE PINK CHUM COHO KING TOTAL
COMMERCIAL 1.045 1.476 0.898 0.182 0.012 3.613SPORT0.073 0.036 0.004 0.058 0.021 .192SUBSISTENCE0.001 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 .005T:"iT9 nrr '0:902 0.243 0.033 T:"BTO
"PRESE~JT"CALCULATED ESCAPEMENT AND RUN STRENGTH BASED ON HARVEST
FIXED IN PRECEDING CALCULATIONS
EVEN YEARS
RATIO HARVEST
SOCKEYE 4:1 1 .621
PINK 3:1 1.577
CHUM 3:1 0.561
COHO 3:1 0.289
KING 3:1 0.030
4.078
ODD YEARS
RATIO HARVEST
SOCKEYE 4:1 1.119
PINK 3:1 1.513
CHU~1 3:1 0.902
COHO 3:1 0.243
KING 3:1 0.033
3.810
ESCAPEMENT
0.540
0.789
0.281
O.145
0.Ol5
1.770
ESCAPEMENT
0.373
0.757
0.451
O.122
0.017
1 .720
RUN
2.161
2.366
0.842
0.434
0.045
5.848
RUN
1•Lf92
2.270
1.353
0.365
0.0)0
5.530
1981-1990 SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION
RATIO HARVEST ESCAPEMENT RUN
KASILOF HATCHERY
SOCKEYE 4:1 120,000 40,000 160,000
TRAIL LAKES HATCHERY
KING 3:1 12,000 6,000 18,000
SOCKEYE 4:1 182,000 61,000 243,000
COHO 3:1 61,000 31,000 92,000
BIG LAKE HATCHERY
SOCKEYE 4:I 97,000 33,000 130,000
COHO 3:I 53,000 27,000 80,000
ANCHORAGE HATCHERY
KING 3:1 50,000 25,000 75,000
COHO 3:I 133,000 67,000 200,000
TUTKA HATCHERY
95:1:HARVEST iPINK 532,000 28,000 560,000
CHUM tUlTE 31,000 9,000 40,000
EKLUTNA HATCHERY
CHUM 3:1 116,000 59,000 175,000
PAINT RIVER 2SOCKEYE4:1 21,000 13,000 34,000
PINK 3:1 2 600,000 300,000 900,000
CHUM 3:1 -0-126,000 126,000
SCURVY CREEK
PINK 3:1 160,000 80,000 240,000
CHUM 3:1 4,000 2,000 6,000
2,057,000 848,000 2,905,000
SOCKEYE 420,000 147,000 567,000 0.567
KItIG 62,000 31,000 93,000 0.093
COHO 247,000 125,000 372,000 0.372
PINK 1,292,000 408,000 1,700,000 1.700
CHUM 151,000 196,000 347,000 0.347
2,172,000 907,000 3,079,000 3.079
2.172 0.907 3.079
1.BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE STOCK WILL BE SEPARABLE AND CAN BE SUBJECTED
TO'MAX1MUM HARVEST
2.BASED ON THE ESCAPEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY TO BUILD THE BROODSTOCK
1990 CALCULATIONS
NATURAL PRODUCTION
EVEN YEARS ODD YEARS
HARVEST RATIO ESCAP EKE NT RUN HARVEST RATIO ESCAPEKENT RUNSOCKEYE1.700 @4:1 0.567 2.267 SOCKEYE 1.700 @4:1 0.567 2.267PINK2.000 @3:I 1.000 3.000 PINK 1.200 @3:1 0.600 1.800CHUM0.700 @3:1 0.350 1.050 CHUM 0.700 @3:]0.350 1.050COHO0.300 @3:I 0.150 0.450 COHO 0.300 @3:1 0.150 0.450KING0.020 @3:1 0.010 0.030 KING 0.020 @3:1 0.010 0.030
TOTAL 4.720 2.077 6.797 TOTAL 3.920 ,.677 5.597
SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION
EVEN YEARS ODD YEARSHARVESTRATIOESCAPEKENTRUNHARVESTRATIOESCAPEMENT RUNSOCKEYE0.420 @4:1 0.147 0.567 SOCKEYE 0.420 @4:1 0.141 0.567PINK1.292 @ :*0.408 1.700 PINK 1.292 @ :*0.408 1.700CHUM0.151 @ :*0.196 0.347 CHUM 0.151 @ :*0.196 0.347COHO0.247 @3:1 0.125 0.372 COHO 0.247 @3:1 0.125 0.372KING0.062 @3:1 0.031 0.093 KING 0.062 @3:1 0.031 0.093
TOTAL 2.172 0.907 3.G79 TOTAL 2.172 0.907 3.079
TOTAL 1990 6.892 2.984 9.876 6.092 2.5S4 8.676
*SPECIAL CONDITIONS-SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
.L.IIIli.o..._
1981-2000 SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION (INC LUDES 1990 INCREMENTS)
RATIO JoIARVEST ESCAPEMENT RUN
PAItiT RIVER
PINK 3:1 600,000 300,000 900,000CHUM3:1 400,000 200,000 600,000SOCKEYE4:I 37,000 13,000 50,000
SCURVY CREEK
PINK 3:I 160,000 80,000 240,000CHUM3:1 4,000 2,000 6,000
BIG RIVER LAKES
SOCKEYE 4:I 33,000 11.000 44.000
PTARHIGAN
SOCKEYE 4:1 14.000 5,000 19,000
CHENIK
SOCKEYE 4:1 17,000 6,000 23.000
DELIGHT
SOCKEYE 4:I 20.000 7,000 27,000
DESIRE
SOCKEYE 4:1 12,000 4.000 16,000
FERT ILIZATI ON
CRESCENT
SOCKEYE 4:1 127,000 43,000 170.000
DELIGHT &DESIRE
SOCKEYE 4:1 64,000 22,000 86,000
CHEN IK
SOCKEYE 4:1 54,000 18,000 72,000
PAINT RIVER
SOCKEYE 4:1 37,000 13,000 50,000
LARSON
SOCKEYE 4:1 48,000 16,000 64,000
BYERS
SOCKEYE 4:1 24,000 8.000 32.000
SHELL
SOCKEYE 4:1 60.000 20,000 80,000
BEAR
COHO 3:1 7,000 3,000 10,000
FINGER,DELYNDIA.
BUTTERFLY
COHO 3:I 8,000 4,000 12,000
..
1981-2000 SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION (INCLUDES 1990 ItICREl1ENTS)
RATIO HARVEST ESCAPEHEI~T RUN
HATCHERIES
EKLUTNA
CHUM 3:I 205,000 103,000 308,000
ENGL ISH BAY LAKES
CHUM 80%HARVEST 74,000 18,000 92,000 .
PINK 80%HARVEST 600,000 150,000 750,000
SOCKEYE 80%HARVEST 80,000 20,000 100,000
KASILOF
SOCKEYE 4:1 120,000 40,000 160,000
TRAIL LAKES
KING 3:1 12,000 6,000 18,000SOCKEYE4:I 182,000 61,000 243,000COHO3:I 61,000 31,000 92,000
BIG LAKE
SOCKEYE 4:1 97,000 33,000 130,000
COHO 3:1 53,000 27,000 80,000
ANCHORAGE
KIt~G 3:1 50,000 25,000 75,000.COHO 3:1 133,000 67,000 200,000
TUTKA
PINK 95%HARVEST 342,000 18,000 360,000
CHUM 95%HARVEST 190,000 10,000 200,000
OTHER
COHO 3:1 33,000 17,000 50,000
CHUM 3:1 33,000 17,000 50,000
PINK 3:1 33,000 17,000 50,000
SOCKEYE 4:1 37,000 13,000 50,000
4,061,000 1,448,000 5,509,000
SOCKEYE 1,063,000 353,000 1,416,000
PINK 1,735,000 565,000 2,300,000
CHUM 906,000 350,000 1,256,000
COHO 295,000 149,000 444,000
KING 62,000 31,000 93,000
4,061,000 1,448,000 5,509,000
".061 1.448 5.509
2000 CALCULATIONS
NATURAL PRODUCTION
EVEN ~EARS ODD YEARS
HARVEST RATIO ESCAPEMENT RUN HARVEST RATIO ESCAPEMENT RUN
SOCKEYE 2.100 !!l4:1 0.700 2.800 SOCKEYE 2.100 !!l4"0.700 2.800
PINK 2.500 !!l3:1 1.250 3.750 PINK 1.500 !!l3:1 0.7$0 2.250
CHUH 1.000 @3:1 0.50'0 ,.500 CHUH 1.000 @3:1 0.500 1.500
COHO 0./'00 @3:1 0.200 0.600 COHO 0.400 IH:'0.200 0.600
KING 0.030 @3:I 0.015 0.045 KING 0.030 @3:1 0.015 0.045
TOTAL 6.030 2.665 8.695 TOTAL 5.030 2.165 7.195
SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION
EVEN YEARS ODD YEARS
HARVEST RATIO ESCAPEHEtlT RUN HARVEST RATIO ESCAPEMENT RUN
SOCKEYE 1.0'3 !!l4:1 0.353 1.416 SOCKEYE 1.063 !!l4 I 0·353 1.416
PINK 1.735 !!l :*0.565 2.300 PINK 1.735 @ I<0.565 2.300
CHUH 0.906 @ :I<0.350 1.256 CHUH 0.906 !!l I<0.350 1.256
COHO 0.295 !!l3:I 0.149 0.4"COHO 0.295 @3 0.149 0.444
KING 0.062 !!l3:1 0.031 0.093 KING 0.062 1!l3 0.031 0.093
TOTAL 4.061 1.448 5.509 TOTAL 4.061 t .448 5.509
TOTAL 2000 10.091 4.113 14.204 9.091 3.61'3 12·704
*SPECIAL CONDITIONS-SEE PREVIOUS SHEET