Coastal fisheries assistance program the status of Alaska's fisheries and their management

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL FISHERIES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:

The Status of Alaska's Fisheries and Their Management

V-4

P,repared by:

The Commercial Fisheries Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
March, 1981

SH
222
.A4
C63
1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . I

Chapter 1: History and Present Status of Coastal Fishery Resources
of Alaska's Territorial Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Statewide Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2
Regional Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 2: The Roles of Governmental, Semi-Governmental, and Private
Agencies and Organizations in Coastal Fisheries . . . . . 49

Resource Planning in Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Inventory of State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Inventory of Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Private Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 3: Coastal Fisheries in State and Local Coastal
Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Fisheries Planning at the Local Level . . . . . . 78
Fisheries Planning at the Regional Level . . . . . . . . . . 85
Fisheries Planning at the State Level . . . . . . . . . 86

Chapter 4: State and Federal Fisheries Management and Regulatory
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 87

State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 87
Federal Systems . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Sources of Descriptive Statistics on Social a d Economic.
Aspects of Fisheries. 92
Relationship of State and Federal Systems . . . . . . . .. 93

INTRODUCTION

Alaska has been and still remains closely tied to the living marine resources
along its shores. The earliest inhabitants of Alaska depended upon the living
resources present in the coastal waters. The first incursions into Alaska by
European man were spurred by the wealth of the marine mammal and fishery re-
sources of the area. Alaska's commercial fisheries have been the single most
stabilizing influence upon the economy of the State since the turn of the century.
The recent flurry of activity associated with petroleum development and the sub-.
sequent,recession has served to emphasize the importance of the fishing industry
as a stabilizing influence upon the State.

Conservation and rational use of coastal living marine resources are major objec-
tives-of the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act and the 1980 amendments to the Act.
The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management created the Coastal Fisheries Assis-
tance Program (CFAP) in order to give States a vehicle for achieving their
objectives regarding their fisheries resources. The objectives of CFAP are to
1) help establish a comprehensive approach to fisheries management; 2) to bring
the operations and objectives.of State and Federal coastal and fisheries manage-
ment closer together; 3) to provide better information and data for decision making
regarding living marine resources; and 4) to improve management of fish stocks.'
In order to determine the possible applications of the CFAP in Alaska, the Alaska
.Coastal Management Program and the Department of Fish and Game initiated a one
year study of the status of the State's, fisheries and their management.
The study has four objectives 1) to review the status of fisheries and fisheries
management in Alaska's Territorial Sea; 2) to identify public and private agencies
and organizations which are involved in managing or developing fisheries resources
or their habitat; 3) to identify the issues, and weaknesses concerning the use
and management of these resources; and 4) to determine the feasibility of establish-
ing a fishery planning component within the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
The work program has been divided into two stages. The first stage of the pro-.
ject focused on.preparing information to satisfy the first two objectives and
to establish the foundation for the analysisof issues and Weaknesses during the
second stage of the study. The second stage of the study focuses on fulfilling
the second two objectives.

This report presents the materials produced during the first stage of the study.
Chapter one, reviews the history and current status of the State's fisheries.
Chapter two identifies the different State, Federal and private organizations
which are involved in fisheries management, development and habitat protection.
Chapter three examines the role which -the Alaska Coastal Management Program plays
with regards to fisheries. Chapter four describes the State and Federal regulatory
and management systems for fisheries. These last two chapters.establish a founda-
tion for analyzing the desirability of expanding the ACMP's fisheries role and
more closely coordinating the fisheries and coastal management programs during
the second stage of the study.

US Department of CommiercO
NOAA CoasW Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
c1harleston, SC 29,@-`@'315-2413

HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF ALASKA'S FISHERIES

INTRODUCTION

Alaska ranks first of all states in the value of commercial fishery products
landed and second in total number of pounds. In 1979, 40,000 individual com-
mercial fishermen participated in the harvest which was sold to approximately
800 processors. Some 10,300 subsistence users indivually, or as heads of
family, participated in the salmon fishery.1 This section reviews the history
and status of this important natural resource.

This review is divided into statewide and regional presentations. The state-
wide presentation briefly discusses domestic commercial fisheries and the
State's aquaculture programs. Recent performance in the domestic fisheries
are contrasted with the historical catch and the State's short and long-range
management objectives. The regional presentation focuses entirely upon the
domestic fisheries managed by the Department of Fish and Game and contains
information on the value, the number of participants, the management programs,
and program needs for each fishery. Important recreational and subsistence
fisheries are identified in this more detailed presentation.

STATEWIDE REVIEW

COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERIES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Salmon have been commercially harvested in Alaska since 1883 (Figure 1).' Har-
vest levels peaked between 1915 and 1945 and thereafter, catch rates rapidly
declined until the 1950's. Decline of individual stocks, rampant overharvest,
a poor biological data base, and-little or no management and enforcem4nt were
responsible for this decline. Prior to the late 1950's, ignorance of resource
requirements, lack of the ability to monitor run status, and a lack of in-season
management flexibility guaranteed that overharvest and inclement survival effects
would not be compensated for in-season or during the next few years (due to poor
brood stock'escapements). By the late 1950's biological data bases were improved
and in-season management became more flexible. Severe fishery restrictions were.
enforced to improve brood stock escapements. By Statehood, these improvements
resulted in higher salmon returns. Survival conditions al:so improved and the
1960 to 1971 average harvest was 52 million salmon per year as compared to onily
41 million salmon harvested per year during the 1950's. Although@ improved, the
1960 era salmon harvest was only about sixty percent of the 30 year historical
high average harvest of 83 million salmon.
In the early 1970's, cold climatic conditions adversely affected salmon survival'
rates, and despite adequate parental escapements, returning runs between 1972
and 1975 were at an all-time low. However, an improved biological data base
and total run monitoring programs in at least some fisheries enabled fishery
managers to detect weak runs and protect them from additional harvest by regu-
latory management. The average annual harvest of only 25 million salmon be-
tween 1972 and 1975 reflected both the poor runs and the effort to provide ade_
quate escapement. -The effort was largely successful and these good brood stock
escapements coupled with improved survival conditions since 1973 have resulted
in an average annual harvest of 75 million salmon between 1976 and 1980. The
1978 harvest of 80 mi-l.li.o.n-salmo,,n, the 1979 harvest of almost 90 million salmon,
and the 1980 ha rve.st-'of @over Y,l 0 mi 1*1 i-on 11' e the largest salmon harvests
-,..sa,. m.on wer
since the 1940's.
I/ Unless otherwise noted the material in this presentation was excerpted from.
Summary and Description of the Program and Component Proje@t5 in the Comm@rcial
Fisheries Division FY82 _Bu_dq_et_R_e_qb_e_sT-,-AKT. Dept. OT Nsh N Game, March, 1930
2

Isalmon harvest averages and Objectives,.in thousands cf f"sh, by fishery u,ii
Table 1. Alaska ccryrercia t'.

30-year t avcrar!@S: 2:irvet ct)Jeczi,!Os:1
historical high Tg@@; 1970- 1930 @,,OrL- LO
Fishery unit averace harvestz 19592 1969 1979 harvest term, terr

Southeaster Alaska
and [email protected] 39,245.0 16,402.8 17.091.2 13.566.9 18.592.7 19,683.0 24.S55.0
Ccp;wr-Deri@g Rivers 1,019.9 829.4 880.2 821.4 359.2 830.a I.CS3.0

Prince William Sound 7.192.1 2,310.5 4,125.5 4,841.9 14,908.8 6,848.0 6,848.0

Cook Inlet 4,285.0 3,550.8 4,001.9 3.520.4 5,187.8. -6,230.0 12.558.0

Kodiak 11,282.5 6,304.9 8,971.1. 8,154.4 19,158.4 e.551.0 13.427.0

Chignik 2,103.1 773.8 1,73Z.5 1,819.2 2.303.3 1.781.0 2,741.5

South Peninsula 6,812.3 3,582.5 2,718.6 3,161.6 12.878.4 3.252.0 5,079.0

Aleutians 323.5 158.2 406.7 130.2 2.626.0 303.0 1,515.0
North Peninsula 1,102.7 847.2 483.4 714.4 2.539.1 685.0 1,163.0

Bristol Bay 18,208.1 6,760.0 10,713.6 10,724.5 28,077.7 .14.500.0 18,600.0
Kuskokwim BPv 208.9 0.8 98.5 114.8 267.4 160.0 275.0

Kuskokwim River 208.9' 0.8 98.5 313.9 714.7 415.0 660.0

Yukon River 404.8 62.6 163.3 840.7 1,519.9 1.320.0. 2,140.0

Morton Sound 141.1 0 124.7 254.0 445.6 433.0 766.0

Kotzebue, 116.2 0 45.2 265.7 376.3 150.0 250.0
Statewide 82,454.51 41,583.47 51,561.31 49,245.01 110,165.41 6S,202.0 92,032.5
Compiled:March 31, 1980. Natural stock data only (1978 and 1979 data is preliminary).
a Shorter periods used for some new fisheries in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskolkwim region.-
3 Vhere even-year - odd-ye3r objectives apply , the larger objective is shown on this table.
4 Based on .average survival conditions, current level of funding and present management technolcey.
s eased on 'average survival conditions and increased funding. and technological abilities 'or fis@ery manacerent.
& -Less than t;.e swo of the individual fishery unit 30-year high average harvests since not all high ;ericds viere
-'_CQJncj_dgr1tai .

L
L

0
N 1100.0-
S
30 yr. high average X
0
F

50.0- 1960-1980 average
A
L
M
0
N
0.0- f i A I T@ i'T, MILlYlilLi -IrM IN IWl M I AUI
1870 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 1. Alaska commercial salmon harvest, 1882-1980

Despite the favorable 1976 to 1980 harvests, the average condition of stocks
is still well below that of the historical period and some individual stocks
are either still declining, in danger of declining (due to changing levels
of fishing effort), or presently are at levels below that of the 1960's. In
nearly all developing fisheries, there is an early period of high harvest
which is not sustained or again achieved. During this period, production of
older and weaker stocks is realized, whereas, during later periods, production
is based upon younger more productive stocks. It is improbable that the aver-
age annual harvest of 83 million Alaskan salmon during this historical.period
can again be achieved by regulation of natural stocks alone. However, improved
regulation can provide significant gains in sustainable productionj provided
that average survival conditions as experienced in the 1960 to 1979 period do
not deteriorate. Short and long-term objectives for harvest of salmon stocks'
total 65 and 92 million salmon respectively. Table I summarizes these objec-
tives for specific fishery units and compares these goals to the 1980 harvest.'
the ten-year averages for the past three decades, and the thirty-year histori-
cal high average harvest. The 1980 harvest exceeded the short and long-term
objective in 12 and 8 fishery units respectively.

Salmon returns for the nea@ future (1981 to 1986) are already somewhat deter-
mined by present escapement levels and present management program development
Harvest gains a6d economic stability will largely be the result of better in-
season detection of surpluses. Long-term objectives will only be realized
after new innovative and sophisticated management techniques are tried and
proven.

These new innovative techniques for management are needed in several salmon
fisheries. Southeastern pink salmon stocks are still depressed below the 1960
harvest rate levels. Salmon stocks continuing to decline or in danger of de-
cline due to increasing fishing effort include Southeastern king, coho, and
chum stocks, Copper River sockeye, Cook Inlet coho salmon and Kotzebue chum
:salmon. Southeastern salmon stocks are well below historical levels. Cook
Inlet and Southeastern salmon stocks have the greatest allocation difficulties.
between competing user groups. Arctic-Yuk<)n-Kuskokwim chum and king salmon
and Aleutian salmon stocks may yield larger harvests than at present if manage-
ment by individual stock can be refined to take advantage of run surpluses.

COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH FISHERIES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Exploitation of Alaska's shellfish resources was not substantial prior to the
mid 1950's. Between 1955 and 1966, harvest of king crab steadily increased
from 10 million pounds to a high of about 175 million pounds. Between 1966
and 1970, king crab harvest decreased to a low of about 60 million pounds,
since that time the harvest has been increasing slightly each year with
a present harvest being over 100 million pounds. The harvest of Tanner crab
has been increasing since the mid 1950's to a current level of about 100
million pounds, and during the same time period, harvest of shrimp increased
to an average level of about 100 million pounds and then.decreased. Tables 2,
3, and 4 summarize management objectives and five-year averages for the last
15 years for the king crab, Tanner crab, and shrimp fisheries. Some shellfish
fisheries exhibited high initial harvest levels which have not been duplicated,
but most stocks are assumed to be in good condition. Northern Bering Sea king
crab and Bering Sea Tanner crab are still developing, and various other shell-
fish fisheries are yet to be developed. The majority of the crab and shrimp
stocks in-the Gulf of Alaska are under full utilization. The shrimp stocks of

'W2

'M N,4

Table 3. A
Table 2. Alaska king crab harvest averages, in thousands of pounds, by fishery laska Tanner crab harvest averages. In thousands of pounds, by
unit'. fsh ry -it'.

5-year a,!races, *75
year erages
-7 0_ 1965- 1970 9 Short term harvest Long tern !,!ri@st
1965': 11970- 1975- Short term harvest Long term hil rv!st
jisilery unit 1969 1974 1979 objectilt 2 objective, Fisherv unit 1969 1974 1979 obecti@e objeci'a.
astern Alaska 1 .0- -- --'-490 goo
Southeastern Alaska so 1,320 3.2EO 4.000 S.Gos@
70
Prince Villian Sound 60 160 70 115 125 Prince William Sound 240 6.480 5.100 S.500 7,500
Cook Inlet 3.3.10 4.320 2,490 4,000 5.000 Cook Inlet 330 4,880 S.430 5.500 7.=
Kodiak 53,200 15,360 1S.930 18,000 2.5,000 Kodiak 3.IBD' 16,810 24.820 21,0110
Chignik-South Pen. 15.970 4.000 2,340 4,400 6.600 Chignik-South Pen. 260' 5.480 12.700 12.000 22.C03
Aleutians 34,800 24.700 10,420 17.000 3.1,000 Aleutians 10 160 .1.2110 2.000
Berfn3 Sea 5,210 24.400 83,700 715,000 Bering Sea .210 .1.420 45.100 92.OCO 92.OCO

Alaska Total' 113,650 73.650 115,490- 119.215 15.3.62S Alaska Total6 4,310 36.540 9.7.6;0 142.00-3 IGS.S30

Compiled 1/15/81. 1977, 1978, and 1979 data preliminary- Compiled I/IS/81. 1977, 1978, and 1979 data preliminary.
.,a Based on average survival conditions. current level of funding, and present manage- eased an average survival conditions, current levels of funding. and present.
inent te,l,,,I,ol management technology.
ly
3 Based on average surviv31 conditions and increased funding and technological s Based on average survival conditions and incrsed fur.-@Ing and technological
abilities for fishery @.ana;erent. abilities for fishery managenent.
. Alaska total may not equal the sum of individual fishery unit entries because 'Cnly 1967-1969 data.
of rounding.
only 1967-1969 data.'
Alaska total may not equal the sus, of Individual fishery unit entries becavsa 0@
rounding.

Table 4. Alaska shrimp harvest averages. in thousands of pounds, by fishery
unit'.

1965- 1970- 1975- Short term harvest Long term harvest
Fisnery unit 1969 1974 1979 objective2 objectiva3

Southeastern Alaska 2,650 950 990 1. 100 2.000

Prince William Sound 2 10 290 350 Soo

Cook Inlet 600 5.490 5.640 6.000 7.500

Kodiak 30.470 64.430 33.470 30.000 46,000

Chignik-Sauth Pen. 268 25,660 43,920 26.000 60,000
Aleutians 0 2,1100' 3.21,3 2.000 5.000

Alaska Totji' 33.927 93.660 93,100 65,450 123,060

I
Cwpiled 1115181. 1977. 19713. -d 1979 data prelim-ry.

Based on average survival conditions. current level of funding. and present
ma.ge-aent technology.

3 Based on avera@e, survival conditions and increased funding and technolaoic3l
biIitits for fishery mdnage-nt.

fishery began in 1967.

Fishery began in 1972.

Alaska total r1ay not equal tile sum of individual fishery unit entries because
of ruunding.

SaIn

400 M250-
M VALUE
L
L
hel
IS"'
CATCH
L 200
L 300- Total 0
Shellfish N
0
N S150-
S
0
200
F
0 1.00-
F J/
D
Shrimp
0
P ibo L
0 ing k\ so-
crab L
U 11 "-.% A
N /,Tanner
Dungeness@ R
D crab S 0
0
S
1955 1960 1.965 1970 1975 1980 1960. 1965 1970 1975 1980

Figure 2. Alaska shellfish catch in millions of pounds and value in millions of doll a rs 1955-1980.

M@ lift' M M

the Gulf of Alaska have recently declined in abundance and additional funding
is needed and included in the Division budget request to better assess stocks.
Harvest of other shellfish stocks is still inconsequential compared to king
and Tanner crab and shrimp. Figure 2 compares the value of the State's shell-
fish and salmon fisheries.'

It is desirable to allow maximum utilization of available shellfish surpluses
without triggering declines in the stocks. To this end aconservative manage-
ment poli,cy has been initiated in most areas consisting of quotas, size limits,
seasons and other restrictions. More precise information on stock abundance
in the future may allow adjustment of harvests in response to natural variati-on
in survival-rates to increase average annual yield and to safeguard against
overharvest in the more recently exploited stocks. Shellfish fisheries,have
developed so quickly that long-term sustainable yield is difficult to estimate.
Whether or not the current data base is adequate to maintain present levels of.
harvest is largely unknown. Until the data base is greatly expanded the Divi-
sion's management policy wi.11 continue to be conservative.

COMMERCIAL HERRING FISHERIES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The statewide harvest of herring decreased from a high of almost 80 million
pounds in 1960 to a low of less than 10 million pounds in 1970 (Figure 3). The
harvest level remained between 30 and 40 million pounds between 1974 and 1977.
Interest in additional utilization,of Alaska's herring stocks has increased'
substantially in recent years leading to rapid development of herring fisheries
in the Bering Sea and in the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula area. Harvest of
herring in 1980 totaled almost 90 million pounds. Southeastern, Prince William
Sound, and Cook Inlet herring stocks have been at low levels of abundance, but
stronger year classes of juveniles are evident that should result in increased*
harvests provided market conditions are adequate (Table 5).

'It is important to be able to regulate the herring harvest according to annual
stock abundance in order to preserve reproductive capacity when stocks are at a
cyclic low. To develop tec*hniques for managing the State's herring resources,
a pilot research project was begun in the late 1960's and early 1970's in South-
eastern Alaska where the major harvest of herring occurred. The primary objec-
tive of this project was to develop a means of locating and assessing herring
populations. Hydroacoustical equipment was developed for this purpose and is
presently being used for management of Southeastern and Prince William Sound
herring stocks. Assessment ability is fairly good in Southeastern, but. has been
@accomplished at the expense of the salmon program and the herring research pro
gram. Coverage of more remote areas is not adequate. Cook Inlet and Prince
William Sound herring fisheries are,monitored inadequately and lack research as-
sessment improvement efforts. Bering Sea herring fisheries have rapidly developed,
..and even with ra.pid development, the research-managment program has been adequate
due to initial federalsupport funding and subsequent State support.

The Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula area herring fisheries are rapidly exp anding
and budget support for assessment, surveillance, and research of these stocks
@Thas been almost nonexistant. The Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula area herring fisher-,
J` ies require new funding for development of an acceptable management regime. -

9001

800-
L

700-

S 600

500-

0.
P1
U; 300.

200-

100-

1965 1970 1975 1980
1960

YEARS

Figure 3. Alaska statewide herring harvest in millions of pounds,-1960-19.80.

--- - - ----------

Table 5. Alaska commercial herring harvest averages and harvest objectives, by
fishery unit, in millions of pounds'.

10-year harvest averacies: Harvest objectives:
1950- 1960- ff7o_ 1980 Short- Long-
Fishery unit 1959 1969 1979 harvest term term

Southeastern Alaska 41.3 29.1 13.1 18.4 [email protected] _25.0

Prince William Sound 16.9 0.2 7.4 14.9 12.5 21.0

Cook Inlet 7.0 2.72 4.17 0.3 @0.8 .10.0

Kodiak-Alaska Peninsula 18.3 .1.8 1.1 7.1 J0.0 20.0

Sea 4 82.6 96.03 47.8 -50.6 77.0

Alaska Total .76.5,. 116.4 122.3 88.5 88.9 .153.0

Coulpi 1 ed 1/15/81. Includes food, bait, and roe catches.

2
1969 only.

3 1970-1978.

4 Includes U.S. and foreign catches in the Bering Sea.

COMMERCIAL GROUNDFISH FISHERIES-AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.

The U.S. commercial groundfish fisheries started in the mid 1800's with a
fishery.for Pacific cod in the Bering 'Sea and along the Alaska Peninsula. By
1900 fisheries for halibut and sablefish (black cod) were actively. expanding
in Southeastern Alaska. Recently, the domestic groundfish fisheries, excluding
halibut, showed the first signs of a sustained increase since the groundfish
fishery decline of the 1940's. Since 1977 the domestic catches have increased
geometrically, approximately doubling each year with the total domestic catch
in 1979 totaling about 20 million pounds (Table 6). Including joint venture
operations (U.S. fishermen delivery,to foreign processor ships) the 1980 catch
Will easily exceed 40 million pounds.

Recent groundfish fisheries have been dominated by-foreign fishing and processing
fleets. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 provided the mecha-,'
nism to transfer the benefits of these fisheries to domestic fishermen. While
the majority of the harvestable surplus from these stocks is--outside of State
aters, the initial development of the fishery has been near o_r_e_ad_jacen-t_to
vl_lwetacs@urg, Sitkad __KNoUdidaJk aInd A utan, All. ou increased harvests of bottomfish
L@ gh
will signi ly benefidt the State's economy, bottomfish fishing, can m a ct
if c
the harvest of salmon, _4qli_but,_an_d_r,.r ies h fish 1 ng
ab_J_n present fisher su
is not properly regulated. Additionally, while potential harvests are much
greater than present harvests, the danger of overharvest of individual stock
units already exists due to fleet effort and distribution. The fisheries mus
be regulated and stocks need to be assessed and sampled. While the Federal
government is responsible for managing much of the groundfish fishery the@State
must remain an active.participant in the development of a management..regime f o r
these fisheries.

COMMERCIAL HALIBUT FISHERIES

The commercial halibut fishery began.iin the last two decades of the hineteenth
century off the coast of Washington. The fishery spread up the Canadian coast
and includes the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. Canadian and United States,
fishermen jointly developed the fishery together and has been managed since
1925 by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), which [email protected]
by these two countries.

Figure 4 illustrates the historical catch of the halibut fishery.2- The United
States catch has declined steadily from over 40 million pounds in the early
1940's to under 20 million pounds in the 1970's. This resulted from overfish-
ing during the early years as well as the incidental harvest of halibut by
Japanese and Russian vessels targeting on other species. Biologists of IPHC
,believe that the stocks in most areas are still below optimum levels but are
responding favorably to the strict harvest levels which ha.ve,been imposed upon
the fishery.

AQUACULTURE

The State aquaculture program was initiated in 1971 in response to the tremen-
dous decline of the salmon fishery in the late 1960's and early 1970.'s. Hatcher-
les were planned and operated solely by the Department of Fish and Game, F.R.E.D.

2/ Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fisheries Management Plan for the Pacific
Halibut Fishery, North -Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1979.

Table 6. Alaska domestic groundfish harvests and harvest objectives in millions
of pounds by fishery unit.

Annual harvest in number of pounds' Short term Long term
Fishery unit @-9781979 1980 Averaoc, objective2 objective3

Southeastern 7.15 7.89 5.44 6.82 15.0 1041.6

Central 6.21 0.62 0.24 0.35 7.0 91.8

Westward 2.9.6 7.54 8.33 4 6.27 44.0 3,945.3

Statewide 10.32 16.05 14.01 13.44 66.0 4,141.7

I Compiled 1/15/81; harvest data preliminary.
2 Based on average survival conditions, current level of funding, present manace'-
ment technology, and anticipated level of fishery development by 1982 to 198@.

3
Based on average survival conditions, increased level. of funding, and managemnent
capability, and recommended optimal yield from the Gulf of Alaska apportioned by
distance of continental shelf edge within NMFS regulatory areas.

Excludes joint venture catch.

so -

C@
Told-
C-
60

-J
-J

U.S.

20 Conedc-i . .......

19720 35 40 45 0 55 60 65 70 75

YEARS

e 4. Total eanadian and United States Catch of Pacific Halibut, 1930- 1976
Figur

a 4-M

Table 7. Val ue of Alaska's commercial fisheries to fishermen (ex-vessel value).
in millions.

a/
Species 1976 1977 197SAl 1979=- 198oIl

Salmon $118.0 $170.8 $215.0 $350.0 $270.0

Shellfish 97.5 158.7 154.6 228.0
.215.2

Halibut, .20.5 17.6 17.2 32.91 13.5
Herrina. 2.5 2.7 8.9 24.10 9.5

Groundfish 1.1 1.6 3.6 5.1 8.9

All Commercial
-$517.1
Fisheries $239.6 $351.4 $399.3 $640.0

a/ Preliminary data.

Division until 1974. At that time the Legislatur 'eauthorized the Department
of Fish and Game to issue hatchery permits to qualified private non-profit
corporations (PNP's), In 1976 the Legislature authorized the creation of
Regional Aquaculture Associations to coordinate private sector-.aquaculture
planning on a regional basis. Coordination between private and public sector
.!aquaculture planning is also occurring on a regional basis. The Department
of Fish and Game conducts other forms of enhancement such as fish ladders and
lake fertilization; however, the following summary is confined to the status
and objectives of the State and private hatchery programs.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the location of State and private hatcheries. Pro-
d6ction statewide And from these hatcheries are summarized in Figure 7 and
Tables 9 and 10. The 1980 returns to State and PNP hatcheries were approxi-
mately 879,000 and 1,504,880 salmon respectively-

The long-term salmon production objectives of the State's program were estab-
lished in 1975 and are summarized in Table 11. Long-term objectives for the
combined public and private programs are being establ.ished.

3/ FRED Annual Report, Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and
elopment, ADF&G, 1980.

1 2

(1) Beaver Fall s
(2) Big Lake
Cannery Creek
(4) Clear
(5) Crystal Lake
17 (6) Deer Mountain
(7) East Creek
.(8) Gulkana River
(9) Hidden Falls
(10) Karluk Lake
(11) Kasilof
Kitoi Bay
(13) Klawock
(141 MAin Rav
15)' Russell Creek
(16) Ship Creek Complex
-(17) Sikusuilaq Springs
.(18) Snettisham
(19) Trail Lakes
.(20) Tutka Bay
3

9 14

7 2

13
Figure A map showing the general locations
0 i . .
5
of existing and planned State hatcheries,within
Alaska, 1930.

(1) Burnett inlet A.A.F.
(2) Burro creek - B.C.F.
(3) Gunnuk Creek - K.N.P.F.D.C.
(4) Indian River - Sheldon Jackson College
(5) Kowee Creek & Sheep Creek D.I.P.& C.
(6) Myers Creek - M.C.A.A.
(7) Perry Island NERKA
(8) Port San Juan P.W.S.A.C.
N.S.R.A.A.
(9) Salmon Creek
(10) Whitman Lake S.S.R.A.A.

zz
6

10
Figure 6. A ina pshowing the general loc
ation of PNP hatcheries
vii thi nAlaska, 1980.

0
U.,
'A' W
,51'r, -I

1000

900

.900

F'.
i. 4

700
Cn XX

4j
60
0

@#R@ ks
__*Wl
500
VIM.
K N

"#fN
<
400

-zv4t
300

R .6

200
"IN
KZ.
vXXI5.

.3.
".kk
100 0.3

1975 19'176 1977 '1978 1979 1980

7
Figure .* Number of salmon produced at.FRED hatcheries that
r-e'turned at adults to,the hatcheries and fisheries from 1975
through 1980. Figure foi- 1980 is preliminary.

T,
y

Table 8. Preliminary count of salmon and steelhead trout produced at FRED facilitie*s
that returned as adults to the fisheries and facilities in 1980.

Project General location King Cohb Sockeye Pink Chum - Steelhead

Beaver Falls Ketchikan
17,000
Big Lake Wasilla 1,463 2,057
Cannery Creek Prince William Sd. - - 125,300
Crystal Lake Petersburg 10,138 82 - 50
Deer Mountain Ketchikan 163 4,200 -
East Creek Dillingham - 1,500
Fish Creek Juneau 251
Fritz Creek Homer 500 -
Halibut Cove Homer 250 @400 -
Hidden Falls ..Baranof Island - - - 20
Hidden Lake Kenai Peninsula 10,897 -
Kasilof Kasilof 608
Kitoi Bay A-fognak Island 359,205
Leisure Lake Homer - 14,000 -
Seward Seward 5,476 -
Snettisham Juneau - -- - 278
Starrigavan', Sitka 295 5,849' -
Tustumena Lake Kenai Peninsula - - Unassessed
Tutka Bay Homer 315,000
Whittier Uh i t t i e r 4,500

TOTAL: 11,705 22,470 28,454 799,505 17,298 50

GRAND TOTAL: 879,482

Table 9-. Preliminary count of salmon produced at PNIP hatcheries that
returned as adults to the convnon proPerty fisheries and hatcheries in
1930. @i

Facility Pink Chum Coho

Burnett inlet 800

Indian River 5,540 200 14

Kowee Creek 5,000

Perry -Island 450

San Juan 1,493,090 1,390

14
Total 1,504,880 1,590

Returns to the San Juan Hatchery include an estimation of the
contribution of hatchery fish in the connon property fishery.

1 6

Table 10.- Long-term salmon production ob ectives of.the state's FRED program as expressed
in the draft "Alaska Salmon Plan," 1975.a

King salmon Coho salmon Sockeye salmon Pink/Chum salmon
adults adults adults adults
Area (millions) (millions) (millions) .(millions)

Southeastern .037 .500 1.300 13.000

'Prince William Sound .100 500 6.000

f. T
%look- Inlet. LUU .900 3.000 4.800

Kodiak .010 .010 1.000 6.400

'Alaska Peni.nsula-Chignik 7.000

Bristol Bay 3.000

.,Arctic/Yukon/Kuskokwim Test facility and
investigations in
Kotzebue area.

Totals '..147 1.510 8.800 37.200

REGIONAL REVIEW

The status of the State's fisheries and their management may be examined at several
levels of detail. Management responsibilities are divided among four regional of-
fices: The Southeast, Central, Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim and Westward Regional offices.
Within each region, the fisheries are divided into fishery-units. Each fishery
unit is composed of several distinct fisheries. For example, the Southeast Region-
al Office has management responsibilities for salmon, shellfish, herring, and
groundfish fishery units and the salmon fishery unit is divided further into pink,
chum, coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon fisheries.

This review contains i-nformation at each level of detail.. The presentation for each
region begins with a tabular summary which lists all of the fishery units within the
region. The table"itemizes for each unit, the number of management projects and em-
ployees, the management budget, recent commercial harvests, short-term harvest objec-
tives, the harvest value-and the number of participating fishermen.

Each unit is then described in narrative form. The narrative generally contains some
historical information, a summary ofthe management strategy being employed by the
Department and an identification of management needs,for the fisheries within the
unit. . For more detail about specific fisheries the reader should refer to the
Summary and Description of the Program and Component Projects Included in the Com-'
mercial Fisheries Division FY 82 Operational Budget Request prepared by the Commer-,
cial Fisheries Division of the Department of Fish and Game.

THE SOUTHEASTERN REGION

Table la Southeast Region Fishery Units:

Commercial
Harvest
Most Short- Value in
Fishery Number Number Operational Recent Term Millions Estimated
Unit of of PFT Budget Commercial b/ Hjrve@t cl of dl N?mber
Component Name Projects Employees 'Request Harvest. - Objective Dollars - of Fishermen

Salmon S.E. Salmon 23 27.7 2,276.1 18,592.60 19,688.0 $53.97 9,000

S.E. Admin. 10.0 413.5

Shellfish S.E. Shellfish- 4 1.3 119..7 6.42 8.50 5.00 475

298.6 18.40 15.00 3.10 -.416
Herring S.E. Herring 5 4.7
Groundfish S.E. Groundfish 6 .2.3 222.1 5.44 15.00 2.50 500

Grand Total S.E. Region 41 46.0 3,330.0 $64.57 10,391

a/ FY 82 CIP request totals $425,000 (salmon @ $300,000 and shellfish @ $125,0001.
g/ Salmon data are in millions of salmon harvested in 1980; shellfish data are 1975-1979
average harvests listed in millions of pounds; herring and ground fish data are
in millions of pounds harvested in 1980.
Based on average survival conditions, current level of funding and present management
technology.
d/ Based on value determined by using 1980 average price by species and short-term harvest objectives..
'il Some fishermen may fish within more than one fishery.unit and hence the total component estimates.
may actually be overestimates.

.18.

The Southeastern Salmon Fishery

Commercial salmon management in Southeast is directed at regulating three
commercial gear group, troll, purse seine and gill net, to achieve needed
escapements. The highly mixed condition of many stocks of the same species
within fisheries, as well as the mixing of different species, makes manage-
ment of Southeast Alaska fisheries very complicated.

The troll fishery targets primarily on coho and king salmon areas composed
of Alaskan as well as non-Alaskan stocks. Proliferation in the size of the
hand troll fleet in recent years has increased the need for more precise
management practices, and many native coho and king salmon stocks are believed
to be overharvested at present. Migration and temporal distribution studies
and determination of escapement requirements should enhance production of
both king an coho by allowing for better management of individual stocks.
Tag recovery and rapid tag data processing is becoming a critical factor
related to managing mixed hatchery and wild stock coho fisheries.

The drift gill net fishery operates in six discrete locations in Southeast,
while set nets are operated in the Yakutat area only. The gill net fishery
target mostly on sockeye, fall chum, and coho depending on the area and time
of season. Management of gill net fisheries in some areas is complicated
because fisheries must be held well in advance of the time when spawning
stocks can be counted in the rivers. Data on stock separation within the gill
net areas are needed as well as better understanding of optimum escapement
requirements, forecasting by smolt indices, and relationships of catch to
escapement.

The purse seine fishery usually targets on pink salmon during the summer and
chums in the fall. Ongoing stock separation work continues to be a key factor
which will determine the future ability to manage the highly mixed pink salmon
fishery. Test fishing and better forecasting are needed to determine pink
salmon run strength upon which critical management decisions must be based
early in the season.

Specific program needs which should over the long-term improve harvests by
more effectively meeting escapement requirements are: (1) initiation of southern
Southeastern pink salmon stock separation studies and the initiation of expanded
stock and/or species separation for chum, sockeye, coho and king salmon; (2)
microwire tagging and port sampling of coho and king salmon stocks; (3) Chilkat
and Chilkoot sockeye smolt indexing and forecasting, (4) sockeye temporal dis-
tribution studies (5) summer chum optimum escapement and escapement assessment
studies, (6) Chilkat fall chum escapement assessment, and (7) evaluation of
pink and chum salmon marine survival factors related to improved forecasting

The Southeast Shellfish Fishery

Southeast king crab management strategy basically follows that specified by
the Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in their
policy statement on management of the king crab resource. Prior the the 1979
season, management decisions were based upon historic catch data, dockside

sampling information and subjective stock analysis information derived from
industry data. A pilot indexing-tagging project was conducted in 1978 and
expanded during 1979 to include portions of all major districts of South-
eastern Alaska. Resulting data provided:

(1) Quantitative crab abundance data for all major districts;
(2) Research cruise CPUE indices to compare to prior years and to
compare to commercial fleet performance;
(3) Estimates of fishing mortality (exploitation rate);
(4) Migration patterns;
Growth rates; and
(6) Population data (sex, size, fecundity, shell condition).

These data, in conjunction with continued analysis of dockside sampling, fisher-
men interviews, and historic catch information allows the staff to manage South-
eastern king crab stocks with an acceptable degree of precision for the first
time since the inception of the fishery.

Tanner crab are managed in the same manner as king crab, but with little datal
no tagging information, and with a very incomplete index program. Additional
data is needed to rationally manage Tanner crab and consequently a new project.
budget request for FY 82 has been submitted.
Dungeness crab and shrimp management is based on historical catch information.'
dockside sampling, limited CPUE information, and available life history infor-
mation. Improvements in thedungeness crab and shrimp data base in the future
would provide for a.more precise management regime.. Proposals for FY 82 are
not being submitted, but proposals will be drafted over the next few years.

Miscellaneous species including abalone, geoduck, and razor clams in most cIases
are managed without.any quantifiable fishery information. The only considerations,
are to the biology of the organisms involved when some data is available and
consequently most regulatory regimes are ultra-conservative. Management of these
species is reactionary to crisis situations. Additional data concerning abalo
ne
and geoducks is needed, but funding limitations prevented such a project.budget
for FY 82 from being submitted.

The Southeast Herring Fishery

Pacific herring stocks are continuous throu ghout Southeast Alaska. Pres ently
these stocks support two district commercial fisheries, a food and bait herring
fishery which occurs during the winter months, and a sac roe herring fishery
which occurs during the spring spawning season. Purse seine fishing gear domi.-,@,_-_
nates the food and bait fishery while purse seine and gill net gear harvest sac
roe herring. Herring pounds account for a small portion of the food and bait
harvest. Individual stocks are managed so that they are exposed to only one
of the two fisheries.

2 0

Management strategy for the Southeastern Alaska herring fisheries is based upon
the determination of the abundance of good quality herring available on a stock
by stock basis and allowing a portion 4 )f the stock to be harvested if-the popu-
lation size meets minimum threshold levels. The successful accomplishment of
this management approach is dependent upon the determination of the size of
herring populations, the age and growth characteristics of these populations,
and the monitoring spawning success on a stock by stock basis.

'The determination of stock size is based on biomass estimates derived from
hydroacoustic and spawning ground success. Age and growth information is ob-
tained by sampling the commercial catch and by trawling surveys conducted in
conjunc tion with hydroacoustic surveys from State vessels.

A major need of the Southeastern herring management program is the expansion
of spawning ground surveys. This includes both increased efforts in aerial
surveys to determine the linear miles of beach used for spawning and dive sur-
veys to determine the amount of spawn deposited. Both of these methods. provide
estimate of mature herring biomass that are stock specific. In many instances
it is not possible to obtain hydroacoustical estimates of stock size and there-
fore, spawn surveys provide the only metho*d to access stock size.. This is
particularly true for small stocks located in remote areas. Although a spawn
survey project is not included in the FY 82 budget, a proposal is currently
being prepared for inclusion in the FY 83 budget process.

The Southeast Groundfish Fishery

The Southeastern Region groundfish unit was created in 1979 through a special
appropriation. In FY 80 special funding from the Office of the Governor pro-
vided funding for a sablefish tagging project near Ketchikan and an expansion
of the port sampling project in cooperation with the State's new bottomfish
development program. As part of the State's bottomfish development program,
the Region's management and research unit budget was increased in FY 81 through
a capital budget appropriation.

The Southeastern groundfish program now manages the inside sable'fish, starry
flounder, cod gill net, and pollock fisheries and through a cooperative manage-
ment agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service collects all domestic
groundfish fisheries data for the Region. The Department's groundfish program
collects catch data for both the Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ) and State
waters and has implemented a skipper interview program obtaining CPUE and catch
area information for the sablefish-fishery.

In order to optimally manage the Region's groundfish resources, assessment
programs and,trawl surveys and tagging are necessary to determine stock status.'
.@Through short-term grants from the Governor's Office sablefish tagging and a
nearshore rockfish survey have been completed. However, some stocks such as
starry flounder and the Clarence Straits sablefish are depressed, while others
such as coastal sablefish are of questionable status. The FY 82 request pro-
vides a small increase for the resource assessment projects while maintaining
adequate observer and port sampling coverage.. A trawl survey for flounder,
a hydroacoustic survey.for pollock and opportunistic tagging of sablefish will
be completed at the requested level of funding.

2 1

THE CENTRAL REGION

Table Central Region Fishery Units:

Commercial
Most Short Harvest Estimated
Fishery Number Number Operational Recent Term Value in Number
Unit of of PFT Budget Commercial Harvest c/ Million of
Component Name Projects Employees Request a/ HarvestY Obiective@ of $'s Fishermele/

Salmon Copper River 9 2.7 $293,800 0.4 0.8 S 6.0 600
200
L. Cook Inlet 5 237,900 1.1 1.8 3.3 250
Prince Wm. Sound 6 4.2 283,200 14.9 6.8 10.9 1

U. Cook Inlet 7 4.7 565,000 4.1 4.5 17.8 3
1000
Bristol Bay 15 7.8 1,236,700 28.1 14.5 43.9 5,000
Region.Admin., 3 .12.0 590,200
------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Total Component 33.7 $3,206,800 48.6 28.4 $81.9 10,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herring Prince Wm. Sound 2 0.6 67,400 14.9 12.5 S 2.5 950
Cook Inlet 1 O@3 52,600 0.3 0.8 0.2 100
Bristol Bay-f/ 5 2. 2649500 39.2 41.5 4.4 19500
----------- ----------------------------------------------------- - -------------
Total Component 8 3.1 $384,500 54.4 54.8 $ 7.1 2,550
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shell- Prince Wm. Sound 3 1.5 $ 92,400 6.4 6.8 $ 5.0 500
fish Cook Inlet 5 1.7 215,800 14.4 16.4 14.0 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Component a 3.2 $3G8,20O 20.8 23.2 $19.0 1,000
----------------------------- I--------------------------------------------------- !--------------
Ground- Central Region-q/ 1 1.0 $ 59,300 0.2 7.0 $ 2.0 30
fish

Grand Central
Total Region 62, .41.0. .$3,958,800 $11o.0 13,630

a/ FY 82 CIP request totals $575,000.
b/ Salmon data are in millions of salmon harvested in 1980; herring data are in millions of
pounds harvested in 1980; shellfish data are 1975 to 1979 average harvests listed in
millions of pounds; groundfish data are in millions of*pounds harvested in 1980'.
c/ Based on average survival conditions, current level of funding and present management
technology.
dl Based on the value determined by using 1980 average price by -species and short term
harvest objectives.
e/ Some fishermen may fish Within more than one fishery unit and hence the total and
ccmponent estimates may actually be overestimates.
f/ That portion of the Bering Sea herring unit attributable to Bristol Bay and Central
Region.
9_/ Refers to Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet.

The Copper and Bering River Salmon Fisheries

Both the Copper River and Bering River commercial fisheries are drift gill -,7
net fisheries that target on sockeye and coho'salmon. Of the two river systems,.
the Copper River.commercial fishery is by far the larger. An addition, the
Copper also supports a saltwater Subsistence king salmon fishery, an upstream
subsistence fishery on kings, sockeye, and cohos along with a limited sport
fishery mainly targeting on kings.

Prior to 1978 the in-season management of the Copper River commercial fishery
was based on catch and catch per unit of effort information. This method., while
imprecise, was all that was possible until side scanning sonar units capable of
enumerating escapements were developed. Escapement level was unknown until

.22

sockeye returns reached the subsistence fishery in the Chitina area, upstream 30
or more days in travel time above the commercial fishery. Aerial surveys of
upriver and delta spawning areas are conducted annually, however, the upriver
surveys are not timely enough to assist in-season management. Funding was pro-
vided to install the first sonar counter in 1978. This counter, installed at
..Miles Lake approximately 7 days in soclkeye travel time above the commercial
fishery, verified in 1978 that a decrease in the run strength had occurred. The
1978 season was opened and closed throughout the fishery as dictated by sonar
counts and catch data to the benefit of realized escapement levels.

In 1979 two sonar units were installed at Miles Lake. The season opened on May
1-5 with the first fishing off the mouth of the Copper River occurring on May 24.
Sonar counts verified a below desired level of sockeye salmon escapement which
collaborated catch data well below normal. The Copper River fishery was closed
on May 29 with no additional fishing until early August when the c,oho salmon
season began. A minimum escapement goal of 250,000 with an optimum of 350,000
has been established.for this system. Following the close of the 1979 commercial
fishery the escapement reached 237,173 sockeye salmon..

The fishery was never opened in 1980 for sockeye salmon due to an anticipated
weak return from the parent year. The sonar escapement enumeration system was
again installed at Miles Lake and monitored from May 18 through August 9. The
season escapement for the upper Copper River totaled over 283,000 fish, thus
reaching the lower end of the escapement goal. Without the capability of sonar,
along with aerial surveys, the past three years would have suffered an exploita-
tion rate that would likely have resulted in a long-term and potentially serious
biological decline.

Because of the.1979 closure on the Copper River a greater effort was @ealized on
the Bering River. The sockeye salmon catch was the highest catch reported since
1922. In 1980,this district was closed based on a forecasted weak return along
with the realized possibility of preventing interception of Copper River sockeye
as they passed through the Bering River District. Aerial surveys are used to
assess escapement to this system.

The 1980 subsistence fishery on the upstream Copper River was managed on a plan
adopted by the Board of Fisheries based on the escapement level determined at the
sonar site. A total of 3,203 permits were issued in 1980 resulting in a harvest
of 24,455 salmon. This fishery is monitored daily at Chitina by a Department
crew responsible for issuing permits, collecting data, and overseeing the fishery.
Aerial surveys are made to count fishv.,!heel effort upstream above the dip net
fishery.

Program needs identified relate to additional information concerning identity of
individual sockeye salmon stocks involved in both the Copper River and Bering
River commercial catches and run strength assessment in or very closed to the
fishing area for sockeye and coho salmon. Run timing between the commercial
fishery and Miles Lake and the subsist ence fishery need additional refinement.
Stock identification techniques to identify delta vs. upriver stocks on the
Copper River needs to be developed. The small king salmon run needs special
attention in terms of assessing run strength and escapement rate to assist in
management of the subsistence, sport, and commercial harvest.

2 3

The Prince William Sound Salmon Fishery

Salmon management in Prince William Sound is directed at three major species
(sockeye, pink and chum) in nine separate management districts. Fisheries are
managed on an emergency order basis in accordance with fishery management plans
and escapement goals established by the Board of Fisheries and the Alaska De-
partment of Fish and Game. These responsible and rational salmon management
plans are based on exploitation of individual stocks at desired levels to produce
optimal sustained yield. Timely data on catch and escapement levels throughout
Prince William Sound is critical information needed to execute those fishery
management plans.- Catch information is obtained through industry catch repo rting
and fish ticket analyses . Actual guarantee of adequate escapement levels is
dependent upon emergency order authority and upon reliable and timely in-season
escapement data provided by aerial surveys, ground surveys, and weir counts on
important spawning streams. Resultant catch and escapement information provides
estimation of potential spawning surpluses for all major spawning areas as well
as allowing the Department to make in-season management adjustments in fishing
time and location so that the surpluses can be harvested. Age-weight-length and
sex data characterizing individual runs, catch compilations by area and species,
and estimation of run strength and timing is also provided.through the catch and
escapement monitoring efforts. As such data accumulates year by year, age compo-
sition of the runs, spawning success, and spawner-recruit relationships are
.derived and used with fry index data to predict or forecast the total return in
future years. Although Prince Wil-liam Sound salmon runs have been steadily im-
proving since the 1964 earthquake,through protective regulatory management, @
continuation of the aerial and ground surveys, weirs, forecast, and,catch monitor-
ing projects by the Department is essential to insure that maximum sustained
yield of the stocks continues.

The recent development of pink and chum salmon hatcheries in Prince William Sound
has required a management policy for both hatchery and natural salmon stocks.
Management should provide for the harvest of hatchery returns to insure a quality
catch and yet provide a sufficient and timely escapement to the hatchery for its
financial and brood stock requirements. Since hatchery produced fish can with-
stand a much higher harvesi rate than natural stocks, special information and
techniques are required in order to develop appropriate management strategies
compatible with differential harvest rates. Information on individual stock
timing and migration routes through the various fishing districts is needed to
accomplish these somewhat competing objectives of full utilization of surplus
natural and hatchery stocks. A tagging study initiated in 1980 should be con-
tinued for three more years to provide for identification of timing and migrat*o
routes of hatchery salmon stocks in Prince William Sound and the project should
continue to emphasize its other goal of preventing overharvest of wild stocks in,
or near hatchery waters while insuring optimum harvest and escapement of hatchery-
stocks. A funding request to support this three year study can be found in the'
Department's FY 82 CIP.budget, and the research should be considered as an, inte-
gral and important portion of the overall Department program for management of
Prince William Sound salmon.

Management of the natural pink salmon stock fishery is also complicated by the
fact that the commercial fleet fishing in some districts intercepts stocks that-
are bound for other districts of Prince William Sound. Development of a fishery
model based on catch timing and fleet effort by management district should. assist,

in efforts to optimize harvests and better insure optimum escapements for each
management district. With the increased strength of the pink salmon run exhi-
bited in the 1979 and 1980 fishing seasons and the recent large fishing effort
exerted by the purse seiners in Prince William Sound, the State should seriously
consider funding a fishery modeling project to enhance the regulatory program of
the Sound.and hence insure that any harvestable surplus can be made available to
commercial fishermen in a timely manner.

The Lower Cook Inlet Salmon Fishery

Salmon management in Lower Cook Inlet is directed at three major species (sockeye,
pink and chum) with additional emphasis on coho being added in.recent years
because of subsistence importance. Lower Cook Inlet has four salmon districts
and 24 subdistricts and sections within those districts. Salmon returns to
streams within these subdistricts; are managed separately on an emergency order
basis in accordance with escapement goals, management plans and policies adopted
by the Department and the Board of Fisheries. Timely and accurate aerial surveys
and ground surveys of spawning streams, and bays are essential for optimum manage-
ment of the returns. Additional weirs, are needed at four streams to achieve more
precise escapement objectives to those locations. The lack of these weirs has
resulted in the loss of over 225,000 salmon in the past six years with an esti-
mated value of $350,000. In the case of two of these S:ystems, spawning escape-
ments may be below optimum levels and increased escapements through fishery
closures would result in increased production in the long run. Age-weight-length
and sex data have not been, col I ected for any Lower Cook Inlet returns in a standard
consistent manner. Such data could result in better forecasting methods for
certain,speci.es,.

Evaluation.of various pink and chum salmon spawning escapements occurs through
pre-emergent fry sampling of index streams. This sampling also produces an
annual forecast of expected adult pink salmon returns to two districts. While
considerable variation in accuracy has occurred in the past, this project has
provided valuable information for management of the fisheries.

The Ldwer@@..Cook Inlet area has.been a prime candidate for aquaculture projects
because of the strong demand for additional salmon by recreational, subsistence
and commercial user groups and because the area has numerous bays and streams
that are ideal for managing these returns separately from naturally produced
returns. While Tutka Lagoon is the best known enhancement facility in the area,
other major enhancement projects at Halibut Cove, Leisure Lake, Caribou Lake,
Seldovia Lake,.Chenik Lake, Scurvey Creek, Fritz Creek and Paint River are pro-
ducing fish or will be in the very near future. The Paint River project alone
has the potential of producing more sockeye, pink, and chum salmon than the Lower
Cook Inlet average commercial catch for the last 27 years. Additional time and
funding ability to adequately assess and manage the returns to various enhance-
ment facilities is needed and should be a high priority in future fiscal requests.

2 5

The Upper Cook Inl.:.et_Sa.l.mon Fishery

Upper Cook Inlet consists of that portion of Cook Inlet north of the latitude of
Anchor Point and is divided into the Central and Northern districts. The Central
District consists of six subdistricts and the Northern District contains two
subdistricts. Dividing such large districts into subdistricts, allows for more
flexible management of the fisheries. Gill nets are the only legal gear used in
Upper Cook Inlet. Set gill nets are the only legal gear allowed in the Northern
District, while both set and drift gill nets are permitted in the Central Dis-
trict, except in the Chinitna Bay Subdistrict where hand purse seines are also
allowed.

All five species of salmon'are harvested-in Upper Cook Inlet as'they migrate to
their stream of origin. The four major spawning systems are theKenai, Susitnal'
Kasilof, and Crescent rivers. Most of the salmon migrate through Cook Inlet at
about the same time, thus creating a mixed species-and mixed stock fishery. The
major salmon producing systems i-n Upper Cook Inlet are typically of glacial
origin and heavily silted. This high turbidity makes in-season escapement enumer-
ation very difficult. Through recent advancements in modern technology, salmon
have been counted or indexed in these- glacial systems with sonar counters since
the mid 1970's. Three projects recently developed (stock separation, offshore
test fishing, and district test fishing) have been used together to provide
additional in-season assessment of the sockeye salmon.run. The information
obtained from these projects has been used in conjunction with-the escapement
data from the four major river systems to provide a reasonabl-y accurate model of
the sockeye salmon run. Such a model has enabled the staff to make logical
management decisions as the.season progressed. As a result of. the run modeling
effort, and the resource monitoring programs, the standard fishing time of two
12-hour periods per.week and/or the normal fishing areas has been frequently
altered by emergency order to better achieve fishery objectives. In.1980, 21
emergency orders were issued in-season. Although new project proposals were not
developed for the FY 82 budget submission, future development of the program will
be necessary to refine the management program particularly for the non-sockeye
salmon species.

The Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery

Salmon management in Bristol Bay is directed primarily at sockeye salmon in five
separate management districts. King and pink salmon runs are managed independently
of sockeye in the Nushagak district because of their run sizes and timing. The
salmon fisheries are managed strictly on an emergency order basis from late June,
to mid-July to achieve escapement objectives in eight key river systems.* .The
fishing districts and management strategies are designed to be as stock specific
as practical . T-imely catch and escapement data is essentiaL in the high volume
and short-term sockeye fishery. Attaining escapement goals is achieved by emer-
gency order adjustments of fishing time and is dependent upon timely-in-season
run strength analysis and escapement data provided by a broad array of projects
such as test fishing, catch analysis and run modeling, stock separation, aerial
survey, and sonar and tower escapement counts. - Rapid analysis of such data
provides the necessary management capability and response time to continuously
adjust fishing time and area schedules'in order to attain escapement objectives
and harvest salmon surplus to these reproductive needs.

2 6

A,, r,
Basic- data-.,,such7 as.7zge-compos,,@,V$.QrV_ spawaing :.propu.'t-a-tivons-@--and -5mo I t p r-'Wdffc ti,
from specific brood years are co 11 ec te,d through the tatch'sa'mpling, e s c'a`p.7e,m e n t
sampling and smolt projects, and these data are utilized to develop.long"ra"
nge
forecasts of probable production. These data are also basic to establishing and
.evaluating escapement goals.

'Adherence to escapement objectives, cycle escapement management strategy (whereby
goals are varied for certain years) in the important Kvichak River system, and a
continuing evaluation and examination of old and new methodologies appears to be
'paying off as current production matches any high point in the history of the
fishery.

Immediate and,long term program needs relate to improvements and expansion of
existing projects to refine management capability in order to more precisely
achieve escapement objectives and consequently provide a resultant increase in
allowable catch. Some key areas that need further refinement are: (1) quanti-
fiable estimates of numbers offish in a fishing district at any-given time; (2)
ability to determine which specific stocks of fish-are involved with district
catches on a real-time basis, especially in the Nushagak district; (3) more exact
estimates of escapements entering major rivers just above the fishing districts;
(4) more precision in estimates of numbers and stock origins of salmon passing
Port Moller seven days before. entering the fishery; and (5) more accurate fore-,
casts for.the next season's run, particullarly on a district basis.-

The Prince William Sound Herring Fishery

herring fisheries of Prince William Sound include: (1) a spring bctL, Vut!
fishery;'(2) a spring wild spawn on kelp fishery; (3) a pound herring spawn on
kelp fishery; and (4) a fall and winter bait and food fish fishery. The Northern,
Eastern and Montague Districts have been established for the exclusive harvest of
....'sac roe herring, while herring for bait and.food markets-may be harvested from
the general district which'includes all waters of the Sound exclusive of the sac
roe districts. Wild spawn on kelp harvests are allowed in all districts, but
only kelp beds located in bays and beach areas of Valdez Arm and Port Fidalgo
have contributed significantly to this fishery. The pound herring spawn on kelp
fishery has been restricted to a portion of Landlocked Bay in Port Fidalgo.
Guideline harvest levels regulate the harvest for each of these fisheries which,
presently total to an annual harvest equivalent of 16 million pounds of herring.,

Resource surveys, age class analysis studies, and,lrecent harve sts indicate that.
the herring stocks of the Prince William Sound area are in a strong healthy
condition. If the stocks maintain pat-terns of abundance similar to those exhi-.,.
bited in past cycles, the herring fisheries can be expected to produce above
average catches for at least two more years. Following the 1982 season, a de-
crease in herring abundance could be expected unless another strong year class
enters the fishery. Such cyclic patterns are expected to impact the spawn on
kelp fishery in a similar fashion. The seaweed crop is maintaining an annual
harvestable surplus. Studies imply that a particular kelping area is harvested
quite heavily-for one of two years resulting in removal of the fronds of the
adult plants. After this occurs, harvesters move into unharvested areas allowing
the previously cropped beds to recover. With the present program level and rate

A"
"4

of harvest (as dictated by guideline harvest.levels), and barring any.abnormal
natural mortalities, the Department believes that the Prince William Sound
herring stocks will be maintained at levels similar to those observed over the,
past ten years.

The herring monitoring program in Prince William Sound includes biological
sampling of the commercial harvest to assess overall population condition and to
determine recruitment of herring into the fishery. Hydroacoustic surveys are
conducted from a Department vessel to locate pre-spawning concentrations of.
herring and to monitor their movements prior to the sac roe season. Activities
also include ground and aerial surveys of herring spawning area to document the
extent and magnitude of spawning. . Ground observations include pre- and post-
season underwater surveys which are aimed at evaluating effects of past kelp
harvests and growth and recruitment of the kelp in harvested areas. A new project
funded by the University of Alaska Sea Grant Program. is examining the herring.
stocks utilized in the bait and sac roe fisheries to determine whether or not the
stocks exploited are the same individual stock or two entirely different stocks.
If a single stock contributes substantially to both fisheries, management strate-
gies can be developed to protect against overharvest during years of low abundance.

Program expansion may be needed in future years, but it appears that the current
level of program is adequate to monitor fisheries and optimize yield at this
time.

The Cook Inlet Herring Fishery

Commercial herring fishing began in Cook Inlet in 1914 as a gill net fishery in
the Halibut Cove area of Kachemak Bay. The industry expanded rapidly and by 1925
there were eight salteries in Cook Inlet. Gillnetting remained the-chief.method
of catching-herring until 1923 when purse seining was introduced. In 1.927 the
stocks, were depleted and the fishery ceased to exist by 1928. Average annual
harvest from 1914 to 1928 was 5.7 million pounds. The next major herring fishery
to occur in Cook Inlet was a purse seine operation for reduction purposes@ in the
Day Harbor-Resurrection Bay area. This fishery began in 1939 and lasted through
1959 and the annual average catch was 7 million pounds..

The present commercial fishery in Cook Inlet began as a purse seine operation in
1969 targeting on the sac roe market. The roe fishery in Cook Inlet lasts from
early May through mid-June. The catch from this fishery peaked in 1970 when 9.6
million.pounds were taken. The catch dropped in 1971 to 2 million pounds taken
mostly in the Eastern District and to only ZOO thousand pounds in 1972 with most
of the catch again coming from the Eastern District.. A large reduction in the
catches during 1971 and 1972-appeared to be due to a combination of late, cold
spring weather experienced in those years and overfishing in 1970. ., Fair weath r
and good prices in 1973 allowed fishermen to search for herring in areas that had
rarely, if ever, been fished before. Fair concentrations of herring were located
in several bays in the Outer District and in the northern end of the Kamishak Bay
District. A new herring fishery also subsequently developed in the Central
District where set gill nets were utilized. Prior to the 1973 season, an 8
million pound quota was set for the entire Cook Inlet area. Since 1973, guide-
line harvest levels have been established for various districts.

The 1978 commercial herring season-ope rated under a new set.of regulations. The
most significant change was the complete closure of the Southern, Eastern,
Outer, and Kamishak Bay districts to herring fishing from April 15 through June
30 unless opened by emergency order. This change in management strategies, e.g.',
switching from an "open season until closed" to a "closed season until opened,"
required the Department to assess the abundance of herring in an area on a regu-
lar basis to determine when a commercial herring fishery should occur and how
many tons of herring could be harvested within guidelines set by the Board and
Department. To accomplish this objective, aerial surveys were made on a daily
basis, weather permitting, in the Kamishak Bay District. Less. frequent flights
were made over the remaining districts due to their lesser contribution to the
herring fishery. The regulations governing.the 1979 and 1980 commercial herring
fishery in the Eastern, Outer, Southern. and Kamishak Bay districts were essen -'
tially the same as in 1978, although both set and drift gil.Inetting were allowed.

The basic history of Cook Inlet herring fisheries is one of erratic fluctuations
@of_harvest due to variable year class strength of the resource and periodic
overharvest by the commercial fishery. Often, herring fisheries have been more
monitored than managed due to a lack, of available personnel and program develop-
ment. The recent emergency order based regulations have improved this unaccepta-,
ble situation to some extent and a minimallevel of program has.developed over..
the last few years. In 1979 alone, 10 emergency orders were.issued by the De-.
partment. In future years, as the resource more fully recovers from the effects
of overfishing, an improved program of resource and fishery monitoring and
management will have to be developed, implemented, and maintained'to insure
optimal sustained yield from the Cook Inlet herring resource.

The Bering Sea Herring Fishery

During the 1960's and early 1970's a foreign offshore fishery harvested massive
.numbers of Bering Sea herring. The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
passed in 1976 provided the mechanism to.transfer this available yield from the
offshore foreign fishery to an inshore domestic fishery capable of harvesting
discrete spawning stocks. The developing domestic fisher started harvesting a
y
significant tonnage of herring in 1977 when 5.6 million pounds of sac roe and
bait herring were harvested. The domestic bait, food, and sac roe fishery
harvested 16.1 million pounds in 1978, 25.9 million pounds in 1979, and 47.6
million pounds in 1980. As the catch increased over the last four seasons,
fishing effort expanded to the north until in 1980, herring were harvested in
every district from Togiak.to Norton Sound. Subsistence fisheries in the Yukon-,
Kuskokwim delta area also harvest herring each year and the 1980 harvest was
approximately 240 thousand pounds or about one half of one percent of the com-.
-oe
mercial harvest.. A largely resident r -on-kelp fishery in the Togiak district
has developed since the late 1960's and the average annual harvest has been
approximately 170 thousand pounds of product. While the volume of herring ex-
-ploited in 1980 by the domestic fishery increased substantially from the 1978 and
.1979 levels, the-value of the catch declined due to weakness of the market.
-Additionally, a decline in abundance of herring was observed which reflected a
rather. drastic decline of most spawning stocks south of the Yukon River.

NO-

Stocks of herring spawning along the eastern Bering Sea-Coast are assessed on an
.annual basis. Repeated aerial surveys are conducted over the spawning grounds to
determine number, size, and location of fish schools. Occurrence and extent of
spawn or milt are also noted, as well as fishing effort and visibility factors
Affecting the quality of each survey. Test fishing with variable mesh gill nets
has been conducted on the Togiak, Security Cove, Cape Romanzof, and Cape Denbigh
(Norton Sound) fishing grounds to collect herring samples for age, weight, sex
and maturity analysis and also to determine relative abundance of other schooling
fishes (capelin, smelt, sand lance and cod) which might be mistaken for herring
by aerial observers. This sampling program was expanded to include Nelson Island,
Kotzebue, and southern Norton Sound for the 1981 season. In the Togiak District,
commercial purse seine vessels and crews have been contracted to set on herring
schools of known surface area to develop a data base for surface area-biomass
conversion factors. Additional information pertinent to stock assessment is also
annually obtained through monitoring.magnitude, timing, location and composition
of commercial harvests of both herring and herring spawn@on-kelp.

The 1980 stock assessment program provided data in-season which indicated that
excessive harvests were occurring. In all districts which produced reliable
aerial biomass estimates, the in-season exploitation rates approached or exceeded
20%. Department managers, following Board of Fisheries guidelines to maintain
the exploitation rate between 10-20%, consequently closed the seasons in each Of
the districts from Togiak to Norton Sound by emergenc order. A surface area-
y
biomass conversion factor was used to calculate final (post-season) estimates,
which resulted in lower biomass estimates in all districts. Thus actual exploi-
tation rates were even greater than those determined in-season and ranged up to
57% for Security Cove. The exploitation rate for the Togiak fishery was 37%, in-,
cluding both commercial harvest and an updated estimate of wastage.
The inshore commercial fishery developed without the need of major regulatory
restrictions from 1977 through 1979 when herring abundance was steadily increas-
ing in most districts. Based on the observed decline in herring biomass and
apparent year class failures in the younger age herring, a more conservative
management approach is being implemented during the 1981 season for the Togiak,,
Security Cove, and Goodnews Bay districts. Conservative regulatory measures to
insure that harvestable surpluses are not exceeded and.recent, population declines
are reversed include the following:
(1) fishing seasons and. periods will be regulated by emergency order,
(2) season openings will be delayed until minimum biomass levels are
observed,

(3) the number and length of fishing periods will be dependent on. herring
abundance and fishing effort,

(4) provided that,minimal biomass levels are observed, exploitation rates
of 10-20% will be maintained except that exploitation rate exerted on
identifiable younger aged fish will be decreased.

3 0

Management strategies in the Cape Romanzof and Norton Sound districts will be
similar to the aforementioned measures; except that the fishing seasons will open
on established dates and minimum biomass levels required to open the season have
not yet been identified. Periodic season closures will probably be required to
maintain proper harvest levels if fishing effort increases in these districts.
Various restrictions are being recommended to drastically reduce or eliminate the
foreign offshore fishery from targeting on Western Alaska herring stocks as well.

Program development and budget support: for the Division's Bering Sea herring
fishery unit has been very adequate.during the.last two fiscal.years. Many new
,projects and activities were added during FY 81 and the FY 82 request reflects
the continuation costs of these projects only as new program development is not
as important at this time as is full development and utilization of the existing
program.

The Prince William Sound Shellfish Fisheries

Prince,William suipportsla new and relatively productive fishery for Tanner crab,
an older established fishery for Dungeness crab which was much reduced by the
1964 earthquake, a limited blue king crab fishery with incidental catches of,red
king crab, a small pot shrimp fishery, a larger trawl shrimp. fishery, a razor - ,
clam fishery, and minor fisheries for octopus and neptdneid snails. The current
data base to manage these fisheries is, built from analysis of fish tickets, some
dockside sampling of the catch, a low level crab resource assessment survey and
fishermen and processor interviews. Only limited data is.available for decision-
makers to design optimal regulatory regimes for any of these fisheries. Lack of
exact life history data for definition of legal size limits and lack of adequate
resource assessment to determine harvest levels for Tanner and blue king crab-
stocks has led to less than desirable resource management strategies.
A new project request is being prepared for FY 83 to address the Tanner a nd.'blue
king crab.data gaps. Future proposals.will be drafted for subsequent fiscal
years_to address the other data gaps such that future management regimes can
become better planned and less reactionary to crisis situations.

The Lower Cook Inlet Shellfish Fisheries

The Lower Cook Inlet king crab management strategy basically follows the Board of.
Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game policy for a multiple age class king
crab fishery. Prior to 1975, seasons lasted 7-112 months, but since establish-
ment of stock monitoring programs in 1974, the fishery has been managed on more
objective and precise data concerning stock.abundance and condition.. The king
crab index and catch monitoring projects now provide estimates concerning:
population abundance information by year class; legal size crab population
strength; recommended catch levels; fishing mortality levels; migration pattern;
growth rates; crab condition; shell condition; and fecundity., Trawl surveys are
being initiated to further refine estimates of age class abundance. Harvest
rates exerted upon various age classes of legal crab are analyzed to determine
the range of harvest rates that can be applied to an age class of crab with
varying population conditions while still maximizing the reproductive potential
of the population. These research efforts and data coupled with dockside
sampling, fishermen interviews and historic catch information allow the staff
to manage the Lower Cook Inlet king crab stocks with preci.sion.

3 1

Although Tanner crab management strategy is similar to king crab management
strategy, the overall data base is much weaker. Aging of Tanner crab once they
reach legal size is imprecise, thus it is more difficult to apply a differential
harvest rate strategy to thespecies. Estimates concerning maximum sustainable
harvest rate and the optimal size of male Tanner crab to harvest while maintain-
ing the populations reproductive potential are still being developed. Additional
research in three districts of Lower Cook Inlet is needed to determine population
levels and characteristics such that the harvests in these districts can be
optimized.

The Dungeness crab fishery.in,Lower Cook Inlet is.highly dependent on west coast
fishery production and market conditions. Although the 1978 to -1980 Dungeness
fishery had a higher ex-vessel value than either the king or Tanner crab fisheries'
from the Southern district, relatively little research on population abundance.
has been conducted. Minimal dockside sampling and CPUE data have been gathered
Some tagging has been conducted to determine migration patterns and fishing
mortalities. Additional basic life history, population abundance, and distri-,
bution data are needed for this species. Dungeness crab populzftions appear to be
cyclical and in-season and pre-season abundance data is needed to provide fisher-
men with future harvest forecast information.

Lower Cook Inlet supports both a trawl fishery and apot fishery targeting on
shrimp. While the fisheries concentrate on separate species, significant har-
@vests of the "pot shrimp species" by the trawl fleet occur throughout the year.y
The Cook Inlet pot shrimp fishery has been very cyclical due to the availabilit
of markets. Population abundance data for shrimp are derived from trawl surveys
conducted in the spring and fall and from pot surveys conducted three times a
year. Although the pot survey is a new project, it should provide a better
indication of potential fishery performance. Data on actual fishery performance,
population abundance and life history are still being gathered and analyzed1for
future use in management decision-making..

The Cook Inlet.trawl fishery is the most stable trawl shrimp fishery in the
State. While this was accomplished primarily through the establishment of a very
@'conservative guideline harvest level at the beginning of the fishery,-data on
population abundance, species composition and growth have provided needed infor-
mation to allow refined in-season management.

The Central Region Groundfish Fishery
The Central Region groundfish @fishery unit program'was first developed in FY 81
due to the increasing interest by fishermen in developing groundfish fisheries in.
In- FY 81 a
Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet during 1978, .1979, and 1980.
modest budget was secured and a full-time biologist was hired in December to
implement a resource and fishery.monitoring a.nd management program. Although
he Alaska Fisheries
recent harvest levels have only been moderate, the State, t
Development Foundation, and private industry are all investing in bottomfish
development projects in Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. Investments include
new and upgraded processing facilities, maintenance of harUors, and other support

3 2

facilities, and fishing trial grants to vessel operators for both nearshore and
offshore demonstration projects. In -1980, a substantial food fish fishery for
rockfish took place in the Outer and Eastern districts of Lower Cook Inlet along
with a trawl fishery for bait in both Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet.
Automatic jigging machines and bottom trawls have been the most productive gear
.type used thus far in Central Region. Sunken gill nets have also been tried in
Cook Inlet with little success.

The nearshore stocks of rockfish and lingcod, which are the main targets of the
Alaskan small boat fleet, are especially vulnerable to overharvest because of
their slow growth and low reproductive capacity. The large sport fishery center-
ed in Seward has already depleted these groundfish stocks in areas adjacent to
Seward. Although within State waters, the State until FY 81 did not have the
ability to initially monitor any Central Region groundfish fisheries let alone
manage them. During FY 80 the Department was able to provide a close fishery
monitoring program for the rockfish fishery.

Cannery sampling and on-board catch sampling was initiated in FY 81 and these
activities will continue to be the primary means for gathering otolith samples5
scale samples and weight lnegth measurements from commercially harvested ground-
fish stocks. The Central Region groundfish biologist will continue to conduct
sampling aboard the State vessels "Montague" and "Pandalus" during bottomfish
trawling charters as well as during shrimp and crab index cruises. Two 400
Eastern bottom trawls have been purchased for bottomfish sampling. Sampling may
also be conducted aboard commercial fishing vessels.to maximize project effi-
Logbooks distributed to each fishing vessel will contribute information
concerning fishing location, depth and gear type, as well as catch per unit of
effort data. The FY 82 budget request. basically represents maintenance of the FY
81 program.

3 3

,AM'r@@

THE ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM REGION

Tablellt.' AYK Region Fishery Units

Commercial
Most Short Harvest Estimated
Jishery Number Number Operational Recent Tenn Value in Number
Unit of of PFT Budget Commercial Harvest b/Millions of d!
Component Name Projects Employees Request HarvestY Objective- of $'sYFishernen@_
Salmon Kuskokwim Bay 5 1.5 $103,9100 0.267 0.160 $0.391 500
Kuskokwim River 7 L6 295,600 0.715 0.415 1.346 1,500
Yukon River 11 6.5 687,100 1.520 1,320 4.749 2,000
Norton Sound 4 2.2 182,800 0.446 0.433 0.416 350
Kotzebue 5 1.2 163,100 0.367 0.150 0.591 350
Region Admin. 1 5.0 229,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jotal Component 33 19.0 $1,667,1100 3.315 2.478 $7.493 4,700
---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Herring AYK Herring2-1 10 11.0 $259,700 8.6 9.1 _$1.000 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grand Total 43 20.0 $1,927,000 $8.493 5,700

The Kuskokwim Bay Salmon Fishery

Until the current fiscal year the Department has had the financial re@sources to
only provide sporadic and sometimes imprecise fisheries management to this remote
portion of western Alaska. When this newly funded program'bbcomes fully imple-
mented within the next two years the following will occur: a

(1) A professional fisheries biologist will be stationed.
in Kuskokwim Bay during the fishery, spending time at
both Goodnews Bay, and Quinhagak to monitor catches and
effort, and to provide assistance to the fishermen and
processor/buyer in those commumiti.es-.

(2) A sonar salmon counter in the main salmon producing
stream in the Quinhagak district; the Kanektok River.
This project, supervised by the permanent biologist for
Kuskokwim Bay will provide accurate and timely escape-
ment figures for this stream system.

.(3) A counting tower on one fork of the Goodnews, River, will
provide an escapement index for this,important stream.,

Fisheries in both districts have been regulated in the past by scheduled week
fishing periods unless extremely obvious trends in resource abundance were
apparent. With the expanded program of escapement and fishery monitoring
it should be possible to detect those trends much earlier and to greatly refine
management capabilities beyond what has been previously possible.

The Kuskokwim River Salmon Fishery

Management employs both emergency order and scheduled fishing periods to regulate
harvests in the lower Kuskokwfifl River where an intense drift gill net fishery
occurs. Fleet capacity in the lower river district is capable of severely .
overharvesting salmon stocks passing upriver. Management is stiffly challenged
to achieve optimum utilization while providing sufficient brood stock into
tributary streams, especially since reliable in-season abundance estimates by.
species and stock are very difficult to obtain. Tributary escapement data,
while important, are obtained after tile major fishery has been completed, and
are therefore of limited use in regulating in-season effort..

Management in this fishery unit relies upon gill net test fishing information
and comparative catch and effort statistics as an indicator of abundance and
..timing. Long range forecasts have not been developed because of the lack of
data by which to contruct them.

Better assessment of stock strength.and timing will be needed to achieve
fishery unit goals. This will be partially realized by new sonar devices
capable of enumerating salmon in the main lower river, yielding an index,of
abundance that can be used from year to year. Run modelling to construct
reliable estimates of current year run strength may be possible by using the_
prior year data base for predictions, based on current year test fishing and'
fishery statistics.

Several major new activities were first funded in this fishery unit during FY 81
and these new efforts need to be fully developed before further new projects are
initiated such that an orderly evaluation of management ability occurs. There-
fore, new project requests were not prepared for the.1982 fiscal year but Wil l..
probably be prepared in the future.

The Yukon River Salmon Fishery

The Yukon area is divided into six management districts. The area management
biologist stationed in Anchorage and his assistant stationed in St. Mary's are
responsible for the lower three districts, below the confluence of the Bonasila.-
River. The area management biologist stationed in Fairbanks,is responsible for
the upper three subdistricts.. Fishing effort is restricted to gill net and
fishwheel gear, and regulated by weekly fishing periods. Three research biologists
stationed in Anchorage and Fairbanks monitor salmon escapements in important
tributary spawning streams by aerial survey and sonar and tower counting projects.
Run magnitude and timing are indexed by test fishing the Lower Yukon near Emmonak,
and in the Upper Yukon at KaTtag and Ruby. King, chum and coho salmon are
sampled both from the catches and spawning grounds throughout the drainage for
age, sex and size data. Experimental studies are being conducted to test the
feasibility of counting salmon with a fan scan sonar counter in the main Yukon
River near Pilot Station, and to identify discrete king salmon stocks based on
scale pattern analysis.

3 5

Program Needs Include:

(1) Maintain and expand escapement enumeration of tributary spawning stocks.

(2) Refine identification of discrete king and chum salmon stocks in the Yukon
River to allow for management on a more stock-specific basis.

(3) Develop data files and computer programs to improve the efficiency and
precision of the management program.

The Norton Sound Salmon Fishery

Salmon management in Norton Sound is, directed toward all five species in the
following order of importance: chum, pink, coho, king, and sockeye.. Separated
management districts exist in Norton Sound. The basic management regime is the
scheduled fishing period, although the Moses Point fishery-was regulated by
emergency order in 1980 because ofa chum salmon stock conservation problem.

An area biologist and an assistant stationed in Nome are responsible for the
entire program in Norton Sound. Abundance during the season is.primarily ass ,essed
by comparative catch per unit of effort statistics. Escapement information is
.gathered primarily by aerial survey, except in the Moses Point district where
escapement counting towers are in place on the two major. tributaries.

Scheduled fishing periods remain in effect until a stock conservation problem is
detected from escapement monitoring or reduced catch per unit effort estimates.

Because of the large geographic extent of this fishery unit,and 'the lack of
intensive monitoring in all the districts and major spawning streams, the largest
need is for more timely catch and escapement data. This need is particularly
felt in district 6, Unalakleet, where the major fishing effort occurs, but where
the Department has only a seasonal fishery technician available to handle fish
tickets, sample catches, and monitor the fishery..

Norton Sound, because of its location and size has not received sufficient
junding support to adequately monitor escapements -in its major producing salmon
streams. Although new projects were not requested for FY 82, management capa-
bility will have to be enhanced during future budget cycl es.-@.

The Kotzebue Salmon Fishery

The Kotzebue fishery is managed by an area biologist stationed i n Nome. The
basic regulatory scheme consists of short weekly scheduled fishing periods in'.'
July, and longer (36-48 hours) periods in August. This affords some protection
to the weaker and earlier Kobuk River stock in July and.maximizes the harvest of
Noatak River stocks. The entire harvest consists essentially.of.chum salmon.
An effective and large set gillnet fishery (about 180 boats in 1979 and 1980)
uses outboard skiffs and 150 fathom gillnets to capture the chum salmon in Hotam
Inlet.

.2@

3 5

Run assessment and timing is currently, estimated by using: (1) comparative catch
and catch per unit of effort statistics; (2) Noatak River sonar enumeration and
test fishing; (3) aerial escapement surveys of the Kobuk River, its tributaries,
and the Noatak River; (4) long range forecasting (still in the development
stage), which may become more useful after several years of refinement. Intensive
monitoring is required during the season to compile current year commercial
statistics, and for post-season subsistence catch compilation.

The major challenge for management in the fishery un-it is to separately manage
and protect the weaker Kobuk River component of the run, while allowing harvest
of the nin,e abundant Noatak stocks. This challenge will become more severe if
the proposed Noatak hatchery successfully produces a major chum salmon run.
Development of improved fishery management and monitoring techniques will be
necessary in the future.

3 7

THE WESTWARD REGION

Tabl e IS%- Westward Region Fishery Units

Commercial
Short- Harv.est Estimated
Fishery Number Number Operational Recent Term Value in Number
unit of of PFT Budget / Commercial Harvest Mil "Onsdl Of
Compocent Name Projects Employees Request@- Harvest tl/ObjectiveSJ/ of $s - Fishermen

lak 7 1.5 $284,400 19,158.4 8,551.0 $16.50 2,000
Salmon Kod
Chignik 7 2.0 209,400 2,303.3 1,781.0 8.00 450
S. Penin. 6 1.0 120,600 12,878.4 3,252.0 6.20 500
Aleutians 4 0 @20,600 2,626.0 308.0 0.44 75
N. Penin. 6 1.0 145,700 2,539.1 686.0 2.30 500
Reg.Admin. 1 2.4 147,700 -
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121@1_@2Tponent ------- 31 --------- 7.9 -------- $928,400 --- 39,505.2 --- 14,578.0 ------ $33.44_-_-__3,525_-__

Shrimp Kodiak 3 2.7 $149,400 33.47 30.00 $ 8.70 300
Chignik 4 1.8 275,400 48.92 @26.00 7.54 300
Aleutians 2 0.5 25,600 3.80 2.00 0.58 10
Crab Kodiak 4 3.5 450,700 41.51 40.50 30.54 1,900
Chignik 3 1.0 128,800 15.06 16.50
10.78 650
Aleutians 3 0.5 183,700 11.63 19.00 500
Bering Sea 3 2.0 268,700 128.810 167.00 93.75 1.600
Reg. Admin 3 774,900
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Component 25
-------------------------------- 27.0 ------ $2,257,200 ------ 283.19-----301.00 ---- $167-38 ----- 5,260---
........ 2.1 --------- $330,000 -------- 7.07 ------ 10-0 ------- $3.50---- .250-Y

Groundfish West. Reg. 6 3.0 $282,800 8.35 44.0 $7.04 184

67 40.0 $3,798,400 $211.36 91,719
Grand Total

at FY 82 CIP request totals $451,300.
b/ Salmon data are in millions of salmon harvested in 1980; shellfish data are 1975-1979 average
harvests listed in millions of pounds; herring and groundfish data are in millions of pounds
harvested in 1980.
c/ Based on average survival conditions, current level of funding and present management technology.
d/ Based on value determined by using 1980 average price by species and short-term harvest objectiv
es.
ii/ Some fishermen may fish within more than one fishery unit and hence the total and component
estimates may actually be overestimated.

The Kodi ak Salmon Fi shery
The Ko di ak management area includes the Kodiak-Afognak group of islands as well..
as the south side of the Alaska Peninsula from Cape Douglas to Kilokak Rocks.
-The Kodiak area is characterized by a rugged coastline with numerous bays and
capes. There are approximately 300 salmon streams within the nine districts.
The center of activity is the City of Kodiak where nine salmon processors are
located'. A few small villages are located on the islands. -Six canneries operate
in the outlying areas.
All five species of salmon are harvested in the Kodiak area, with pink salmon
being the most important. Ranges of catches within the last ten years are as

3 8

f ol I ows: Kings, 529-3,228; sockeye, 135,418-1 071 782; cohos, 3,573-140,226;'
pinks, 511,708-17,290,488; and chums, 84,431 -1 541 227.

The 1980 pink salmon catch was the highest ever recorded. Recent chum and coho
catches have also been very good. The sockeye runs have steadily been rebuilding
in terms of escapement, catches are remaining at favorable levels, and most
stocks are. considered to be.in good shape.

The fisheries are managed with the aid of weir counts, catch analysis, commercial
catch reports, forecasts, and aerial surveys. Sockeye escapements need to
continue to build in the long-term in -those systems where production is below
optimum. Tagging will continue as this building process goes on. It will
provide necessary information on the degree of interception or exploitation by.,
various fisheries. A long-term need for the chum and coho salmon fishery is to,
improve surveys and escapement counts and to initiate chum salmon forecasts.
For pink salmon the long-term strategy will be to maintain the runs at current
high levels using the same management strategy as in recent years.

The Chignik Salmon Fishery
The Chignik management area extends from kilokak Rocks to Kupreanof Point on the
south side of the Alaska Peninsula. The Chignik area is characterized by a
rugged coastline with numerous@ bays and capes. There are approximately 80
salmon streams within the five districts., The center of activity is within the
Chignik Bay district where three villages, two processing p
lants and a fish camp
are located. Chignik River supports by.far the largest and.mos.t important. run
of salmon in the area.

All five species of salmon.are taken in the Chignik area, with sockeye being the
most important. Ranges of catch within the last ten years are as follows:
Kings, 255-2,322; sockeye, 378,669-1,972,219; cohos, 12,245-119,484; pinks,
25,445-2,056,999; and chums, 8,701-353,,952. . The Chignik salmon stocks have
produced well in the last five years after recovering from low production in
1972-1975. The 1980.catch level was above average on all species,except sockeye.

..Annual construction and maintenance of the '400 ft. pile driven Chignik River
weir requires a major logistical effort. Weir counts, catch analysis and commercial
salmon catches are some of the major tools used in regulating the fisheries
which key on the two runs of sockeye salmon in the Chignik River system. Methods
0f separating magnitude of fish in Chignik Lagoon are needed to more accurately
manage this fishery as well as that at Cape Igvak where Chignik bound sockeye
are i.ntercepted. Aerial surveys and catch analysis continue to be the major
sources of information used for in-season management decisions of the fisheries
in the outside districts.

Better management and increased sockeye production are expected from improvements.
in run forecasting a'nd the development of analysis methods for more accurate
separation of the two distinct sockeye runs into the Chignik River system. This
will provide the ability to achieve more exact escapements to the different
spawning segments. Long-term objectives for the Oink and chum fisheries are to
improve forecasting accuracy and to provide better protection of t he resource
from the standpoint of law enforcement.

3 9

................ A@_

The South Peninsula Salmon Fishery

The South Alaska Peninsula management unit includes the Alaskan waters from
Kupreanof Point to Unimak Pass including the offshore islands. The South Alaska
Peninsula area is characterized bya rugged coastline with-*many bays and capes.
There are numerous salmon streams in the area. The fishing fleet operates
primarily out of Sand Point, King Cove and False Pass. Salmon processors are,
located in each of these villages.

All five species of salmon are harvested on the South Peninsula. In June the
fisheries occur mostly on migrant fish, primarily sockeye, and chum, whereas the,
July and August fisheries target on local pinks, c 'hums,"and cohos.. Ranges of
catches within the last ten years are as follows: Kings, 415-4,800; sockeye,
311-700-3,588,300; cohos, 200-272,300; pinks, 58,051-7,816,100; and chums,

All the local stocks of salmon on the South Peninsula appear to be in good
condition having produced record or near record returns in thelast three years.
The fisheries are managed primarily with the aid of aerial surveys, commercial
catch reports, forecasts and stock analysis. - Day to.day fishery management--.--
decisions are made with input from these projects as well as.other information..

A long-term goal of this fishery unit is to-continue to maintain the current
high level of salmon production. Improved forecasting of returns for pink and
chum salmon and increased coverage of late.chum and coho, escapements would
provide needed data to increase harvest levels without substantially hurting the
overall reproductive capacity of the stocks. Although the coho harvest has been,
strong for the past two years, this species is often not harvested at the maximum
level due to the late timing of the return.

The Aleutian Island Salmon Fishery

The Aleutian Islands management unit includes the waters of the Aleutian Islands
from Unimak.Pass west to Attu. The Aleutian Islands area is characterized by a
rugged coastline with many bays and capes. Some of the larger islands have
several good salmon streams, but little has been done in terms of surveying and
cataloging many of these streams. Some salmon processing is done at Unalaska,
however most of the catch is exported to the South Peninsula.-.

Since statehood all salmon cathces for the area have dome from Unalaska. Island.
All five species of salmon have been reported in the area, however, most of the
salmon caught are pink salmon with sockeye being second most important. Ranges
of catches within the last ten years are as follows: Kings, 0; sockeye,. 100-.
12,200; cohos 1-100; pinks,2,800-2,611,900; chums, 100-4,900.,

The stocks of pink salmon on Unalaska Island are currently in excellent condition
have produced a record return in 1980. Very little information is available on
salmon stocks west of Unalaska Island.

The salmon fisheries of the Aleutian Islands have been managed with the aid of
aerial surveys which are limited due to funding and logistics. Commercial catch
data also is an important tool for management of these fisheries.

The long-term goal is to continue to maintain the high pink salmon production to
increase and stabilize this production as well as that of other species through
additional surveillance and monitoring., It is hoped that 'additional funding will
become available so. that work can be expanded beyond Unalaska Island and that the
potential salmon production of many islands to the west will be realized.

The" Kodiak Shrimp Fishery

The Kodiak Area shrimp fishery began in 1958 when 2.9 million pounds of shrimp
were harvested and the fishery continued to develop until a peak harvest of over
82 million pounds occurred'in 1971. Commercial shrimp fishing gear has included
smaller beam trawlers as well as larger single and doublerigged otter trawlers.
Efficient trawl gear has in some instances resulted inoverharvest leading to
depressed stock conditions.

A series of regulating measures have been implemented over the last fewyears to
better protect the reproductive potential of the stock. In 1972,@harvest quotas
were established limiting the total yearly harvest. In 1973, a complete egg
hatch closure for the district was established, thus creating a biological
fishing season of May 1 through February 28.

In 1979, the Alaska Board of Fisheries approved the Department's overall manage-
ment plan to respondto the continuing severe decline of shrimp stocks within
the Kodiak District. This new regulatory program or approach considered stock
status criteria in various fishing sections. The current shrimp stock condition
and abundance was determined by comparison with a historic "representative level
index" (after initial exploitation). Subsequently, each section was determined
as stable depressed (40 - 100 percent of representative level), or severely
depressed (less than 40 percent of representative level).. After these initial..
evaluations were determined seasons were adjusted or fine tuned for depressed
stocks to take fuller advantage of existing reproductive potential. Subsequent
fishing exploitation rates were based on several factors including growth rates,
age of shrimp at sexual maturity, and biomass. Major portions-of the Kodiak
district (Kiliuda Bay, Two-Headed Island, Inner Marmot Bay, Marmot Island, Uyak
Bay, and Uganik Bay) remained closed for the entire 1979-1980 season due to
their severely depressed status. In other sections (Aliftak Bay, Chiniak Bay,,
Kukuk-Bay, Olga Bay, and Uyak Bay) a season of June I - September.30 was e . s-
tablished to maximize protection of females while they were ovigerous, mating,
extruding eggs, and heavily schooled. Remaining fishing seasons in sections
(West Afognak, North Afognak, Wide Bay,, and Puale Bay)-was from June I - February
28. Guideline harvest levels were established and fisheries were managed within
these guidelines.

Three major needs exist relative to developing and maintaining a definitive
management strategy for Kodiak shrimp success. First is the continuation of the
existing abundance estimates obtained by trawl surveys accomplished by Department
vessels or chartered vessels. The trawl survey program needs additional funding
to assess stocks recently found by the fishing fleet such as the Alit,a,k Flats

area which produced 10,000,000 pounds in 1980. Secondly,accurate definition is
needed of those areas inhabited by discrete shrimp stocks. Third, the ability
to accurately assess species composition and age of shrimp in a timely fashion
needs to be developed and more fully utilized for day-to-day management de-
cisions.

The Chignik and South@Peninsula Shrimp Fisheries

The Chignik and South Peninsula shrimp fisheries has produced some of the largest
shrimp harvests in the State. The Chignik District encompasses all waters west
of Kilokak Rocks to Kupreanof Point and the South Peninsula District includes
all waters west of Kupreanof Point to Cape Sarichef. The Chignik District is
further subdivided into seven subdistricts and the South.Peninsula District has
eight subdistrict s.

The origin of the Alaska Peninsula shrimp fishery dates back to the 1967-1968
season when 900,000 pounds were landed. Seasonal catches escalated rapidly from
5.3 million pounds landed during the 1968-.69 season to 71.6 million pounds
landed during the 1977-78 season. Catches from the South Peninsula have dropped
from 45.0 million pounds harvested in 1977-78 to 3.1 million pounds during the
1979-80 season, and in 1980-81 the fishery was closed. Chignik District catche
havealso decreased from 25 million pounds per year during the late 1970's to
only 12.8 million pounds during the last season.

Season catches, vessel effort, and processing capacity remained fairly stable.-
from the 1968-69 season through the 1971-72 season. During this period a single
processor in the Shumagin Islands, with,five peelers, took deliveries from three
vessels. Alaska Peninsula shrimp fishing expanded rapidly as a resul@ of in-
creased processing capability in the area and harvest limits placed on the
Kodiak area. Between two and five processors operated up to fifty-six peelers
in a single year during the past six years.

The highest recorded harvest for the area came in 1977-78 when 26.4 million
pounds and 4.5 million pounds were taken from Chignik and South Peninu@a respec-
tively. Most of this product was processed in Kodiak.

During April 1978, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted a shrimp management
policy concerning. depressed. shrimp stocks as recommended by the Department. . The
Department staff documented that certain shrimp sections had shown an historic
decline in abundance and the staff recommended that these stocks were in need of
greater protection. All historic production areas have a.two month egg hatch
closure. ., In addition, depressed "stocks were further restricted by a closure
during the entire mating and egg bearing period. Starting with the 1979-80
season, certain Chignik and South Peninsula sections were designated as being
opened only by emergency order. Stepovak Bay; Unga Straits, and Beaver Bay were
placed in this classification during the 1979 Board of Fisheries meeting. Prior
to the opening of the 1979 season, Ivanof Bay was added to this group.

The trend of increasingly depressed stocks of shrimp in the South Peninsula
District shows up in the decreasing length of seasons. South Peninsula's 1979-
80 season lasted only three months compared to ten months in the 1977-78 season.

The most urgen need of the Chignik-South Peninsula shrimp fishery unit program

is to expand the present level of trawl surveys. The survey program has never
recovered since NMFS withdrew their funds from the survey program, and inadequate
surveys are still being made because of funding level. The present management
strategy requires increasing accurate and timely abundance estimates and although.
an increase in funding level is requested for FY 82, additional increases will
be required in FY 83.

The Aleutians Shrimp Fishery

The Aleutians shrimp, fishery began in the early 1970's. By 1978, the shrimp
harvest totaled 6.6 million pounds. Unalaska Bay, Makushin Bay, Uguf Bay, and
Beaver Inlet support developed fisheries at this time. The Unalaska.Bay stock
is considered to be depressed. Lack of available funds have prevented the
Department from conducting a annual population assessment, therefore management
has been primarily dependent upon catch statistics. Because knowledge of the
strength of these shrimp populations is so deficient,' a new project proposal is.
being prepared for submission as part of the,.FY 83 budget submission.

The Kodiak Crab Fishery

The Kodiak crab fishery unit program is comprised of the Division of Commercial
Fisheries resource and fishery monitoring and regulation program for king,
Tann ,er, and Dungeness crab stocks of the Kodiak area. The Kodiak king crab
fishery began in the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's approximately 5.2
million pounds-of king crab were harvested annually by salmon purse seine type
vessels in bays and nearshore areas. Since 1960,.the fishery has changed to,a
pot fishery and has expanded rapidly growing to a historic high harvest of
approximately 95 million pounds during the 1965-66 fishing season. Continued
increase in vessels, effort and gear efficiency coupled with declines in stock
abundance during the late 1960's and early 1970"s resulted in lowered harvests,,
with a low commercial catchof 10.9 million pounds occurring during the 1971-72
.fishing season. More recently, successive years of good recruitment produced
catches of approximately 24 million pounds in the 1974-75 and 1975-76 seasons
Lowered stock abundance during the period 1976-78 caused a reduction in the
seasonal harvests. However, an increase in recruitment observed recently has
reversed this downward trend resulting in an upswing in the commercial harvest
during the most recent season.

The Tanner crab fishery has been in existence since 1967. Through the 1971-72
fishing season, harvest was less than '10 million pounds. As king crab abundance
declined in the late 1960's and early 1970's markets opened up, prices increased,
and more vessels participated in the fishery.

By.the 1972-73 season, Tanner crab had established itself as the dominate winter
and spring shellfishery. During the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons a harvest level
of 30 million pounds was set by,the Alaska Board of Fish and Game as a conserva-
tion measure, based on the Department's best biological information. The low
catch of 13.6 million pounds caught during the 1974-75 season was a result of a
prolonged strike. Recent-harvests range from 15 to 35 million pounds.

The Kodiak Dungeness crab fishery began in 1962 with a catch of 1.9 million
pounds. As a result of favorable market conditions and unexploited stocks,
commercial harvest increased and peaked in the four year period from 1967
through 1970 with an average annual harvest of 6.3 million.pounds. During the
early 1970's the fishery declined due to biological and environmental factors
accompanied sometimes by adverse marketing conditions. In recent seasons, weak
markets and other more lucrative alternative fisheries have kept the Dungeness
production at a low level..

The Kodiak king crab resource and fishery monitoring program has been in existence
in some form since statehood beginning with life history studies in the early
years to the present multi-age class management strategy. The program consist S,
of two major components which are fishery monitoring and population assessment.
The fishery is managed under the concept of discrete stocks. Maximum harvest
allowed within each catch district is based on abundance estimates gathered from
population ass essment.cruises. The present funding level is adequate for the
king crab management program if vessel charter rates do not increase substantially
in FY--82- The major program need at this time is to betterassemble the hi'storic
data base.. for further analysis and publishing. 0

Tanner crab resource and fishery monitoring is similar to the above outlined
program for king crab.. A Tanner crab tag release/recovery program has been'
developing each year during the.crab stock assessment charter.. During the 1979
July charter, 1,339 Tanner crab were tagged and during the 1979-80 season, 337
of these tags were recovered (25 percent). This is the highest percentage of
Tanner crab tags returnedduring a season since the program was initiated and
it has allowed the staff to better analyze.exploitation rates. In addition to
the pot index program, an exploratory trawl survey is being initiated to assess
Tanner crab abundance. An.initial feasibility test provided results which were
very encouraging and continuation and expansion of this abundance estimateis
high priority and is possible due to an FY 82 CIP budget request.

Dungeness crab are managed with Catch statistics derived from the fishery moni-
toring project. Expanded program needs for an improved regulatory regime for
the Kodiak Dungeness crab stocks would be expensive and are presently not war-
ranted given the level of resource utilization compared to king or Tanner crab
fishing.

The Chignik-South Peninsula Crab Fishery

The Ch-ignik-South Peninsula crab fishery unit area includes all waters bounded
by a line extending south from Cape Kumlik on.the east and a line extending
south@from Scotch cap light on Unimak Island on the west to the 200 fathom depth
The area includes three districts used for king crab manage
contour. ment (Unimak
:Bight, Central and Chignik) and two subdistricts for management of Tanner crab
(South Peninsula and Chignik).

King crab fishing began in the Chignik-South Peninsula area in 1947 when 141,00
pounds of crab were landed. Trawl gear was used extensively between 1941 and
1961 when it was finally prohibited. The Chignik-South Peninsula's harvest
peaked in 1966 at 22.5 million pounds.-- Thirteen million pounds of this record
catch came from the newly exploited Unimak Bight and Davidson Ban k. areas. Prior

to 1966 most of the catch came from Pavlof, Stepovak, and Balboa bays.

During the 1970's 60-90 percent of the South Peninsula king crab harvest came
from the Central District. Unimak Bight has.produced little more than 1.5
millilon pounds in any of the last nine years. Chignik District has been char-
acterized by small catches of primarily post-recruit king crab. King crab
abundance estimates are obtained by using pot index surveys in the area from
Scotch Cap to Kupreanof Point. Where populationabundance estimates are avai.1-
able they have proven quite reliable.

Tanner crab fishing in the South Peninsula District began in 1967 when 5,000
po.unds werelanded, Catches gradually increased until the 1973-74 season when
13.7 million pounds were harvested district wide. Since the 1973-74 season the
district harvest has fluctuatedbetween 8.8 and 18.1 million pounds. During the
past five years South Peninsula district catches have fluctuated between 5.2 and
1.2 million pounds while the Chignik subdistrict catches have fluctuated between
.3.6 and 6.9 million pounds.

Currently population abundance estimates are obtained for the South Peninsula
Tanner crab stocks on an annual basis.. These estimates are used to set pre-
season guideline harvest levels...F.ishery performanceis monitored and compared
with estimates which ultimately result in management decisions on the appropriate
level of allowable harvest. No population abundance estimates exist for the
Chignik Di.strict which is managed by comparing fishery performance to the his-
data base-. The Department is initiating stock assessment efforts in the
Chigni:k District using trawls begining in July of 1981 with CIP funding. At
this time, no urgent priority needs exist for improvementor expansion.of budget
level for any aspect of the Chignik-South Peninsula crab program.

The Aleutians Crab Fishery

@The Aleutians king crab fishery unit includes both Dutch Harbor and Adak. The
Dutch Harbor area contains fuve fishing districts along the Eastern Aleutian
.Islands between Scotch Cap and 170' W. longitude. A king crab fishery began in
the Dutch Harbor area during 1961 and the fishery was fully developed by the
1966-67 season, when 32.9 million pounds of king crab were taken. Fishing
effort began to reach significant p*roportions during the 1964-65 season, and
continued to increase through 1966-67. After peaking in 1966-67 the Dutch
Harbor catches declined until 1969-70. Catch and effort were stabilized during
the early 1970's by inception of a quota system. Since 1973-74 the fishery has
again sustained increased harvests. The Adak area king crab fishery initially
developed during the same time frame that the Dutch Harbot fishery was developing
although recent harvests have been substantially less than harvests made during
the late 1960's and early 1970's. Tanner crab fisheries in both the .Adak and
Dutch Harbor areas are insignificant in comparison to king crab fisheries.
Standa'rd crab fishery management techniques are employed in both areas. Popula-
tion estimates of crab in the Dutch Harbor area are made available when funds.
are available. Population abundance estimates for the Adak area have not been
done since 1978 because of funding limitations. The Dutch Harbor area should
probably be sampled at least every other year to monitor changes in population.

45
&
A'

. . . . . ...... .....

abundance.

The North Alaska Peninsula Salmon Fishery

The North Alaska Peninsula management unit includes all waters of Alaska on the.
north side of the Ala.ska Peninsula from Cape Menshikof to Unimak Pass. The
North Alaska Peninsula has a relatively straight coastling facing the Bering Sea
and is indented by few bays. There are approximately fifty salmon streams in
this management unit. The fisheries are primarily operated out of the villages
of Port Moller, Nelson Lagoon and Port Heiden., A processing.plant is located at
Port Moller, but much of the catch is exported out of the management unit and
processed in the South Peninsula management unit.
Very@,few,pink salmon enter streams on the North Peninsula. In June,-.king salmon
are takemwith emphasis of the fleet changes and the fleet targets on chums and
sockeye with coho catches increasing in August. Ranges of catches within the
1 ast @ ten years- are as fol 1 ows:. Ki ngs , 1,792-16,900. Sockeye,'172,112-1,975,100.,,
Cohos, 8,222-127,000.: Pinks, 50-485,300. Chums,.8,770-698,800.,

All the local.. stocks ofsalmon on the North Peninsula appear to be in very good
cond.ition-at this time having produced record.or near record runs in recent
years. The fisheries are managed with the aid of aerial surveys, commerci al'
catch reports, tower counts and stock@-analysis. Day to day management decisions
aremade with information from these projects.
A major long-term goal is to continue to maintain the current,high level of
salmon production. Improved and increased coverage of late chum and coho escape-
ments will provide needed information to allow the Department to manage less
conservatively and hence increase the harvest of these species., The coho harvest
level, although favorable in the last few years, can be potentially.larg.er..,-

The Bering -Sea Crab Fishery

The Bering Sea king crab area, statistical area "Q" includes waters of the
Bering and Chukchi Seas north of Cape Sarichef and east of the U.S. -Russian'
Convention Line of 1867. The area is separated into three fishing districts;
Southeastern, Pribilof and Northern. Commercial king crab fishing.in the Bering
Sea began with the Japanese in 1930.. The Japanese left the fishery in.1940,
returned in.1953i and remained unt.il.1974. A Russian king crab fleet operated
in the eastern Bering Sea from 1959 through 1971. U.S. fishermen entered the
Bering Sea king crab fishery withl@trawl gear in 1947., @Effort and catch declined
in the 1950's and there was no catch at all in 1959.@, A period of fluctuating,,
low catches &lowed through 1966:before expanding to the. current full scale pot
fishery.
The Bering Sea fishery has traditionally taken red king crab from.Bering Sea and.
Bristol Bay waters north of Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula from Cape
Sarichef to Port Heiden. However in 1973 a fishery began for blue king crab in
the Pribilof Islands, and in 1977 fisheries began for red king crab in-Norton
Sound and blue king crab near St. Matthew and St. Lawrence Islands.,-@.

4 6

Responsibility for development of a management regime that regulates both king
.and Tanner crab of the Bering Sea is shared by the Department, the Board of
Fisheries, and NMFS. The Departmentrecommends regulatorychanges, monitors the
fishery and issues closure announcements. NMFS provides population estimates.
using the Area Swept Technique while the Department has initiated pot surveys i
in
some areas of the Bering Sea. This data is uti lized by the Department to set
pre-season guidelines.
Currently funds areladequate to monitor the 20 landbased processors taking crab
from the Bering Sea, but no funding is available to monitor catch on floating
processors a4so fishing the area. The Department is dependent upon NMFS for
trawl survey population assessments. Presently if NMFS cuts this program as
was the case for their Gulf of Alaska shrimp stock assessment program, rep'lace-
ment funding would have to be found.for the present management strategy to
'continue.

The Westward Herring' Fishery

The herring roe, bait, and food fisheries as well as other forage fish fisheries
are currently in a state of.expansion and development throughout the nearshore
waters of Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula. Historically, large quantities of.
herring were harvested primarily for food and reduction in both the Kodiak and
Unalaskalareas. Substantial herring catches have been made incidental to shrimp .
trawling in the fall both alongthe Alaska Peninsula and near Kodiak.
The increasing demand for herring for bait and food prompted.a trawl fishery to
develop during the spring of 1978. Although this fishery developed during a
:time when the, herring did carry roe, itwas basically a bait and.food;fishery.

In 1978 a total of 29 seiners, 11 gill-netters and two trawlers harvested 904
tons of herring between March and October. This harvest was entirely from the
Kodiak area. Only incidental herring trawl catches were made along the Alaska
Peninsula west of Kodiak. Total value to the fishermen was approximately
$323,000,for theroe herring and $80,000 for the bait and food herring.

'During 1978 one beach.seiner, 58 seiners and 1,14 gill-netters participated in
the Kodiak fishery. Prior to 1978, no gill net gear had participated.in the
fishery. Expressed in percent, the effort. on Kodiak roe herring stocks has
increased 427% since 1978 and 1500% since 1977. The average roe season effort
prior to-1978 was 13 seiners. The total value to Kodiak fishermen in 1979 was
approximately $2,500,000.*

The roe fishery is presently limited by a guideline harvest level of 2,400 tons.
Thefood and bait fishery is expecte'd to expand drastically not only as a target
species,..but also incidental to developing bottomfish fisheries. Other forage
.species are also expected to be exploited along with development of the bottom-
fish fisheries.

Inorder to manage fisheries targeting on these stocks it is necessary to have
information, regarding individual stock size, migration patterns, age structure,
mortality rates and spawning areas. Until better information is available,@the
fisheries will continue to be managed on the basis of limited historic catch

data and "conservative" guideline harvest levels. Consequently, the major need
of this fishery unit is to develop a useable data base concerning both fishery
performance and resource abundance such that the management regime can be improved
and provide fishermen the opportunity to achieve optimal utilization of herring
stocks. Implementation of the FY 82 budget request will provide the fiscal
needs for the Division to build this needed data base.

The Westward Groundfish Fishery

The Westward Region groundfish unit was created in 1976 with general fund monies.
In 1977 additional money from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council was
used to develop an observer program aboard U.S. trawlers to obtain fisheries
data and estimate the impact on prohibited species such as crab and halibut.
Until 1980 the Westward Region conducted this observer program on a statewide
basis. As part of the State's bottomfish development program, the Region's
management-and research unit budget was increased in FY 81 through a capital
budget appropriation.

Besides the catch reporting and direct management functions of the program.the
observer program retains the highest priority and remains the program's major
function. -With the large expansion of the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea
the importance of the observer project becomes-more critical with increasing
chances of over-exploitation of thetarget species and impact on prohibited
species. Because a major portion of the catch is taken in.the joint venture
fishery (U.S. fishermen/foreign processors) and delivered to foreign processors,
a logbook project is being initiated which will document catch rates and area of
catch for-this fishery and for the shore-based fleet. The logbook and observer
programs will provide the major portion of required management data f@om the
domestic fishery. Additionally several small resource assessment surveys will
be conducted on the Kodiak area groundfish stocks to determine stock status.
Major offshore assessment surveys will continue to be done by the National.
M-arine Fisheries Service.

Data from the observer and logbook projects are reported to both the Alaska
Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

In order to optimally manage the groundfish resource the observer and logbook
programs-must expand in proportion to the expansion of the fishery. Additional
resource assessment surveys such as hydroacoustic surveys of Pollock -in Shelikof
..Strait and trawl surveys of cod near Akutan will also be needed as the fisheries
intensify and management becomes necessary.

.48

THE ROLES OF GOVERNMENTAL, SEMI-GOVERNMENTAL,
AND PRIVATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN
COASTAL FISHERIES

INTRODUCTION

A principal objective of the CFAP study is to identify agencies and organiza-
tions which are affected by or have responsibilities regarding coastal fisheries.
The following presentation begins with a review of land use and fisheries planning
efforts being conducted within the State. This review is followed by three in-
ventories which catalog State, Federal and nongovernmental agencies and organiza-
tions respectively. Each inventory describes the organizations' responsibilities
or concern with fisheries resources and its enabling legislation. This document will
serve as the basis for examinations of weakness in existing programs during the
secondy phase of the study.

RESOURCE PLANNING IN ALASKA

A number of the organizations listed in the following inventories are conducting
formal planning programs. An understanding of these programs will contribute to
the final evaluations of the need for a comprehensive fisheries planning element
within the ACMP. Although the products of these planning efforts vary the usually
result in a formal document which states long range goals and objectives and
specific regulations, strategies, or programs for achieving these ends. The
following discussion groups planning efforts into four categories: land use
planning, fisheries management planning, fisheries development planning, and
aquaculture planning.

Land Use Planning

A number of State and Federal agencies, in addition to the ACMP, are developing
land use plans which are essential to the protection of fisheries habitat. At the
State level the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a major land use planning
program underway. Land use plans have been completed for the Haines-Skagway are
and initiated for the Susitna area, Tanana drainage, and North Slope. In the com-
pleted plan, management zones are established within 200 feet of major salmon
spawning streams. Timber cutting practices within these zones are to be determined
on a case by case basis by the State Forester after consulting with the Department
of Fish and Game. The Department of Fish and Game is initiating a regional plan-
ning program within Native Regional Corporation boundaries which will result
in fish, wildlife and habitat management plans for these areas.

At the Federal level, every agency with land management responsibilities has prepared
some type of management plan. Additional planning documents will need to be prepared
as a result of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The
Forest Service prepares ten year management plans for the lands under their juris-
diction. The most important feature of these plans is the designation of specific
areas for different levels of development and guidelines for habitat protection
in the areas where development is greatest. The National Park Service develops
plans for each park service unit. Statements about fishereies management in these
plans tend to be broad and lacking in specific management objectives. The Fish and
Wildlife Service must prepare comprehensive conservation plans which specify programs

for conserving fisheries for all National Wildlife Refuges.

The ANILCA requires the creation of a Land-Use Council, co-chaired by the
Governor and a Federal appointee, consisting of the several State agency heads
and the Alaska regional directors for several Federal offices. A primary function
of the Council"will be to coordinate land use planning. The bill also mandates
-the development of a cooperative State/Federal plan for the Bristol Bay region.

Fisheries Management Planning

Fisheries Management Planning is occuring at State and Federal levels.' The
State's primary planning effort with regards to fisheries management is carried
out within the Commercial Fisheries Division as part of its budget process.
Program summaries T-66-7--Yn ma*or fi heries managed by the Department of Fish and
Game include long range goals and specific management objectives. These summaries
also identify the major problems in each fishery. This planning* effort. differs
from the others described thus far since-the budget documents are used primarily
for internal purposes. The materials presented in the first section,of this re-
port were excerpted from this'document.
In addition to the budgeting process noted above there have' been other instances.
of management planning. First, in 1976 a*draft Statewide Salmon Plan was produced
by the Department which reviewed the history and current status of the salmon
fisheries by region and species and established midrange and long range harvest
goals in each case. Second, Comprehensive Salmon Plans are being produced for
-each region as mandated by aquaculture legislation passed recently by the Legis-
lature. These plans include goals and objectives for managing natural- stocks and
increasing productivity via hatcheries and other enhancement efforts. Third, the
Commercial -Fisheries Division is currently preparing a Stock Status Report which
reviews in detail the biological health of all major fisheries, management -
practices, and their effectiveness, and management problems. The final document
will most -likely be published for distribution to the public. Finally, the Board
of Fisheries with help from the Department prepared a salmon management plan for
the Copper River Salmon Fisheries. This document established.total 'escapement
goals, specific harvest levels for the subsistence, fishery, openings and closing
dates, and a-mechanism for allocating the resource among subsistence, recreation,
and commercial users.which could be adjusted depending upon the size of the returning
runs for a given year. Formal planning documents, such as the Copper River Salmon
Management Plan, have not been produced regularly by the Board, but ,are likely
to become more common,as a result of the need for better documentation of the
rationale for Board actions which has been created by the Subsistence Law and
through interaction with.the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).

Federal fisheries management planning is conducted by the NPFMC and is described
An Chapter Four. Fishery management plans have been approved.or are pendi.ng. ap-
proval for five fisheries off the Coast.of Alaska.

Fis heries Development Planning.

Development of domestic fisheries for underutilized species and those currently

being harvested by foreign fleets has been the focus of State and Federal develop-
ment programs. The State Bottomfish Program prepared a twenty year opment
p
,)-an-which establishes development g-oa.1-s and outlines O-Ugr ms for resource and
environmental protect ion, 'd'Ev6l opment Q_f@upport ifffi-n on
lask, __TW_
'n7i7
nf7
an.&_tec-hn.G_1.ogy trarfs @r, 'and__f-he@p-r=omoti.onqf_ erprise. e Fottomfish
program -:E-- =i@f____rriculum develop-
also fundFd he preparation of a long range plan or cu
ment by the University of Alaska and a comprehensive port study by the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities.

The majority of Federal development funding is passed through to th e non-profit
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF). The Foundation has submitted a
regional development plan for the past three years. The format for the plan has
changed each time and is presently being revised. A fisheries development plan
for Western Alaska fisheries (principally those fished by-Alaskan Natives) is
,being developed in conjunction with the AFDF plan.

'Aguaculture Planning

Aquaculture planning is presently being conducted on a statewide basis by the
Fisheries Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development Division of the Department
of Fish and Game and on a regional basis by Regional Planning Teams which are
composed of commercial.fishermen and representatives from the Department of Fish
and Game. These plans establish over all management and enhancement goals for each
species of salmon and establish broad guidelines for the siting of enhancement fa-
cilities within the region. A draft plan for the Southeast Region has been completed.
Plans for other regions are.at various stages of completion.

The second phase of this study will examine the extent to which the planning
..,programs from the four categories are coordinated with one another, means of
improving these plannings processes, and the need for and feasibility of es-
tablishing a comprehensive fisheries planning component Vithin the ACMP.

gil

INVENTORY OF STATE AGENCIES.

A. Office of the Governor

1. Special Assistant on Natural Resources Provides guidance on State
policy regarding fisheries and other natural resource issues..

2. Division of Budget and Management - Analyses budget proposal s, for
fishery related departments and programs.

3. Division of Policy Development and Planning

a. Policy and Program Specialist for Fisheries

1. Responsi bi 1 ities

a. Monitors compliance of fisheries development
projects with program policies.

b. Develops options for regional planning process in
Aleutian Islands.

b. Office ofCoastal Management

1. Oversees the development of coastal management plans by
local governments. These plans identify sites which-are
used for subsistence, recreation or commercial fishing,
important habitat, or suitable for fisheries related
facilities.

2. Coordinates State review of Federal permitting processes which
regulate activities which may impact fisheries habitat.

.4. Alaska Fisheries Council - The Council is composed of the Commissioners
of Fish and Game and Commerce and Economic Development; State legislators;
the Director of FRED Division (Department of Fish' and Game); represen-
tatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Board of Fish
eries and the Office of the Governor; and private citizens. The Council
played an active role in developing the State's private non-profit
hatchery program and presently monitors the progress of fisheries en-
hancement and development programs. The special Projects Coordinator
Office of the Governor, coordinates the Council and for this reason
the Council is described here.

B. Department of Commerce and Economic Development

1. Commercial Fisheries Development Division

a. Lead agency for fisheries development, coordinates programs in
other agencies which deal with development. The State's Tokyo
and Copenhagen offices previously under the Office of International
Fisheries and External Affairs will be directed by this division.

b. Present and planned programs include:

1. Mustad autoline production trial

5 2

2. Prince. Wil I iam Sound jigging system trial (with Alaska
Fisheries Developrient Foundation)

1
3. Marketing of food herring (with Danish consultant)
4. Production and marketing of herring (with Alaska
Federation of, Natives)
5. Marine Advisory System (with Bering Straits Fishermen s
Association)
6. Quality control for Bristol Bay sockeye (with IMAKPIAK
Regional Aquaculture Association)

7. Bottomfish profiles - review of stock information by
species to help fishermen locate large concentrations of
bottomfish.

2. Division of Business Loans

a. Commercial Fishing Loan Program Up to $50,,000 may be loaned
@at 9.5% for the construction, purchase, or renovation of fishing
vessels.

b. Fisheries Enhancement Loan Program Up to $6,000,000 to regional
associations and $1,000,000 for other nonprofit hatchery corpora-.
tions, at 9.5% for 30 years for hatchery preconstruction and
and construction activities and operating costs.

3. Commercial Fisheries and Agriculture Bank (CFAB) -Makes loans to
commercial fishermen and farmers. The Bank has been-established as
a public corporation with a legal existence independent of the State.
It is, by statute, also an instrument of the Department of Commerce
Economic Development and for this reason is listed here..

C. Department of Community and Regional Affairs

1. Commissioner's Office Rural Development Council

a. Composed of 3 commissioners, 3 federal officials, 2 legislators,
the Director of DPDP, and 6 representatives from rural areas.

b . Responsibil ities. Newly formed, it is not yet clear what role
the Council will play in fisheries.

2. Division of Community Planning

a. Assists communities in planning for infrastructure needs
resulting from development. Administers Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEID) Aich provides funding for studies
which determine the effects of energy development.

b. Recent and current programs include-

5 3

1. an evaluation of 5 communities as potential sites for
support facilities for the bottomfish industry. Eval-
uation of 5 more communities is underway.

2. funding planners in Unalaska., Sand Point, King Cove,
and Yakutat.

3. funding wildlife evaluations and salmon tagging program.

D. Department of Education, Adult and Continuing Education Unit - Development
and coordination of fisheries education programs (not including the University
.-of Alaska), talent bank of technical specialists, andeducational materials.

E. Department of Environmental Conservation

1. Coordinates State's environmental management efforts.. Establishes
water quality standards and reviews and certifies development projects,
which may impact salmon spawning streams.

.2. Meat and Seafood Inspection Program - Inspects quality of se afood
produced in Alaska. Products which arecontaminated are confiscated.
F. Alaska Board of Fisheries - The seven.member Board 'of Fisheries is appointed,
by the Governor to establish seasonal fishing regulations. The Board's ac-
tivities are coordinated by a staff located w.ithin the Department of Fish
..and Game.

G. Department of Fish and Game

1. Commercial Fisheries Division

a. Implements and maintains the State.s commercial. and sub-
sistence management programs.

b. Conducts management related research covering domestic
fisheries with particular emphasis on stock.status and fishery
performance.

C. Serves as scientific staff to the Board of Fisheries which
establishes fisheries regulations.

d. @Coordinates:interaction between the State and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.

2. Fisheries-Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development.'

a Develops, maintains and coordinates State plan for present
and long range rehabilitation.
b. Operates'State hatchery facili ti es and ot her enh anceme nt projects
such as fish ladders, lake fertilization and stocking and stream
clearances.

C. Conducts research on fish culture technology, genetics and
pathology.

3. Sports Fish Division

a. Manages and develops sport.fish resource.

b. Stocks fish in freshwater systems.

C. Conducts harvest, life history, and land use studies.

4. Habitat Section

a. Responsible for the protection, maintenance and improvement
of fish and wildlife, habitat.

b. Regulates by permit process activities in anadromous streams,
game refuges and c@itical habitats. Reviews and monitors
projects associated with pipelineand Haul Road.

C. Participates in land use planning and coastal management program.,

d. Solicits nominations for critical habitat areas.

.5. Subsistence Section

a. Compiles existing data and conducts studies on the role
of subsistence activities in lives of State residents.

b. Provides information and anlysis to the public, agencies,
and other organizations.

C. Assists the Department and Boards of Fisheries and Game in
classifying subsistence users, uses, and methodis of.harv.est.

6.1 Public Communication Section

a. Issues news i-eleases and prepares Public service announcements.

b. Publishes Fish Tails and Game Trails, the Department's magazine.

@7. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (The Commission is grouped
with ADF&G for administrative purposes, but functions autonomously).
@Responsible for determining optimum gear levels forsustaining
economic viability of the State's fisheries.

a. Application Section Evaluates initial permit applications.

b. Permit Section -,Permit renewal and vessel licensing.,

C. Data Processing Section

d. Research and Planning Section Lastyear helped develop limited
entry program for hand troll fishery. This year will review
capitalization trends and classification by fishery, gear type,
and resident/nonresident status.,

5 5

8. Alaska King Crab Marketing and Quality Control Board (The Board is
grouped with Fish and Game for administrative purposes, but functions
autonomously) - Promotes king crab through marketing and quality control
programs.

H. Department of Labor

1. Commissioner's office Responsible for mediating price disputes when
asked by industry to participate. The Bristol Bay strike was the only
dispute they were brought into formally this year.

2. Wage and Hour Division - Responsible for bonding of fish buyers and
processors to ensure that they will pay employees and fishermen. A
$10,000 bond must be posted by all buyers and processors.

3. Employment Security Division, Employment Services Administers program
for placing Alaskan residents in processing jobs. Focus is on identify-
Jng problems with hiring residents and rura] recruitment.

.4. Research. and Analysis

a. Conducted survey on the intent of f i shermen and processors
to participatein bottomfish fisheries.
b. Conducted survey of fisheries education.programs..
c. Plans to develop employment statistics to aid in policy analysis
and decision making.

I . Department of Law Provides legal council to the State on fisheries related
issues. One AG will be stationed in Washington D.C., with NOAA General Council
to provide a liason with the State on fisheries issues.

J. Department of Natural Resources

1. Division of Forest, Land, and,Water Management

a. Classifies State lands, sale of State lands, mineral resources,
sand, gravel and timber.
b. Develops land use plans which include designation of fish and
wildlife habitats (plans for two areas have"been completed).

.2. Division of Parks Responsible'for park management. Conducting a
comprehensive outdoor recreational plan which will include assess-
ment of the importance of sports fisheries to the 8tate's park system.

K. Department of Public Safety, Division of Fi.sh and Wildlife Protection
Enforces fish and game, entry commission, and some environmental regulations..

L. Department of Revenue

1. Administers fish taxation programs.

2. Alaska Renewable Resources Corporation Serves as a venture capital
bank to finance development of the State's renewable resources. Over
$18 million have currently been invested in various fisheries projects.
ARRC operates independently from the Department of Revenue, but is
associated with the Department for administrative purposes.

M. University of Alaska

11. College of Environmental Sciences, Sea Grant.- Conducts programs in
education, research and public service dealing with marine science,
fisheries harvesting and processing, and food technology. Long term
plans include upgrading bachelor's and creating a masters degree pro-
gram in fisheries and developing a fisheries technology cen te r.

2. Marine Advisory Program - Serves as a communication link between
scientific, educational and marine industrial communities.* Has provided.
technical assistance and training to aquaculture industry, harvestors
and processors.

@6 7NZ,

INVENTORY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

A. Department of Agriculture

1. Forest Service, Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Unit.

a. Enabling Legislation

I Creative Act 1891
2' Weeks Law Act 1911
3 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 1960
4. Wilderness Act 1964
5. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act'1964
6. Endangered Species Act 1973
7. Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974
8. Sikes Act 1974
9. National Forest Management Act 1976
10. Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976

b. Responsibilities

1. Manages fisheries habitat on National Forest Lands.
2. Develops ten year management plans and guidelines for land.
use on National Forest Land.

B. Department of Commerce,

I Economic Development Administration

a. Enabling legislation Public Vorks and Economic Development
Act of 1965.

b. Responsibilities established to help generate employment.'
opportunities in areas with high unemployment or low family incomes.

C. Programs

1. Business Development Assistance

a. Direct loans and loan guarantees to finance costs of.
fixed assests and to provide working capital.

b. Has been used for financing processing facilities
and,aquaculture facilities.

2.. Technical Assistance Jointly funded with the National. Marine
Fisheries Service a comprehensive strategic plan for fisheries
development in Alaska.

3. Grants fo rPublic Works and Development Facilities

a. Provides grants and loans for acquiring and developing
land and improvements for public works.

b. Has been used in developing processing facilities,,.
docks, and water systems

4. A requirement of the enabling legislation was that Economic.
Development plans be prepared and updated annually for
areas receiving aid. Plans have been prepared for thirty
one Alaskan communities.

2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,(NOAA)

a . National Marine Fisheries Service

1, Enabling legislation

a. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, PL.92@522
b. Endangered.Species Act of 1973, PL 93-205
c. Commercial Fishries Research and Development Act, PL 88-309.
d. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, PL 89-304,
e.. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act

2. Programs

a., Law Enforcement

Provides information on foreign fisheries between
three and 200 mi I.es of the Alaskan Coast..

2. Enforces regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Commerce.

b. Marine Mammals and Endangered-Species

-s and enforces provisions of Marine Mammal
implement
'Protection and Endangered Species Acts

C. Fisheries Management Operations

1. Implements, evaluates, and updates fishery management
plans, developed by the NPFMC.

2. Provides information to and participates in NPFMC
plan development team.

3. Administers grant-in-aid programs which provide
for cooperative, studies for conservation and en-
hancement of anadro ous fisher*
M les.

d. Environmental Assessment

1. Monitors developments which may alter habitat
associated with marine resources.

2. Reviews federal permits for.the Corps of Engineers,
EPA, Coast Guard, and BLM.

5 9

3 Prepares resource assessments and identifies potential
resource use conflicts and critical habitats in oil
and gas lease sales.

e. Fisheries Development

1. Administers fishery development grants to industry.

2. Provides information on fisheries financial -support
services (Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage Fund,
Vessel Construction Subsidies, and the Fisheries
Loan Fund.

3. Provides marketing information.

f. Northwest. and Alaska Fisheries Center

1. Conducts resource surveys and aquaculture research.

2.. Monitors and studies the catch composition of for(
fishing fleets beyond three miles.

3. Biologists participate on plan development teams and
the Scientific and Statistical Committee of ,the NPFMC.
3. North Pacific Fishery. Management Council (NPFMC),

a. Enabling Legislation Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
of 1976.

b. Responsibilities formulates fishery management plans for
fisheries from three to 200 miles.seaward of Alaska. These
plans are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Department
of Commerce.

(Note - The NPFMC is a quasi-governmental agency composed of State
and Federal officials and private citizens. The Council is however,
administered through the Department of Commerce and for this reason
is included here.)

C. Department of Defense

1. Army Corps of Engineers

a. Enabling Legislation.

I.' River and Harbor Act
2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
3. Clean Water Act of 1977

An,-
b. Responsibilities Administers permit programs specified in
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These permits regulate
development within navigable waters, wetlands and other-sensi-
tive aquatic habitats.

D. Department of Interior

1. Fish and Wildlife Service

a. Identifies endangered species and places them on the Secretary
of the Interior's official 1 i sts..
b. Evaluates effects of@pollutions on fish populations and studies
major resource development programs for their impact on fish
populations.

c. Manages and prepares conservation plans for National Wildlife
Refuges.

d. Reviews permit applications required by the R.ivers and,Harbors
Act and Clean Water Act.

Represents the Fish and Wildlife Servic
e . e on the North Paci f i c
Fishery Management Council.

2. National Park Service

a . Responsibilities
1.1 Manages fisheries resources within National Parks, has recently.,
recommended-that commercial fishing bd phased out within...National..
Parks.

2. Develops Natural Resource Management Plans for each 'unit of the@
National Park System, including those created by the Alaska
National Interest Lands Act of 1980 (ANILCA)

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service

a. Responsibilities

1. Admi nii Sters Land and Water Conservation Fund
(matching1grants to States for acquisition and
development of public, recreation. are and facilities).
2. DevelOpMent-of Nationwide Outdoor Recreation:',Pfan.'
3. Bureau of Indian Affairs

a . Fisheries Management Program

1. Manages trap, gillnet, and purse seine fisheries within
the Annette Island Reserve.

Operates area hatchery.
2.

6 1

- - - - - - - - - -77

3. Conducts fisheries development feasibility studies.

b. Subsistence.Program

1. Serves as advocate of subsistence users.

2. Plans to conduct a village by village assessment of
subsistence practices, uses and needs.

4.- Bureau of Land Management

a Enabling Legislation

Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976, PL 94-579
2.,: Sikes Act.,

b 'Resource Division, Fisheries Biologist

I Prepares general. and site specific' habitat management plans
for BLM lands.

2. Coordinates aquaculture programs on BLM-lands.

5. Subsistence Regional.Advisory Councils.

a. Enabling Legislation'- Alaska National Interest Lands. Conservation
Act 1980

b. Responsibilities

1. Reviews and evaluates proposed regul ati ons, policies, management
plans, and other matters relating to subsistence uses.-

2. Prepares annual report to the Secretary of Interior which'
identifies current and subsistence uses and needs of fish and
wildlife populations and recommends strategies for management.
(Note the Advisory Council are composed of residents from'the six
Alaska subsistence regions defined by the Act; these councils are
discussed here since they are administered by the Department. of
Interior.)

6. Al.aska Land Use-Council

a. Enabling legislation Alaska National. Interest Lands Conservation
Act 1980.

b. Responsibilities The Alaska Land Use Council will serve as a
coordinating mechanism for land and resource planning and use within
the State.

y
(Note - This Council is an intergovernmental body, co-chaired b
the Governor of Alaska and a Presidential appointee, which con!
of the agency heads from State and Federal natural resource and
transportation agencies and representatives from Native Corporations.

6 2 ......

The Council is described here because of its role in implementing ANILtA
which is administered primarily by the Department of Interior.)

E. Department of State

1. Enabling legislation and International conventions

a. International Convention for High Seas Fisheries of the North
Pacifi c Ocean, 1952..

b. Convention for the Protection, Preservation and Extension of the
Sockeye Salmon Fishery of the Frazer River System, 1937..
c. Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fisheries, of the
Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 1925..

Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976.

2. Responsibilities

a. Serves on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council as anon-
voting member.

b . Allocates foreign fisheries quotas among foreign fishing nations.

C. Administers United States participation in three International
Commissions whichare involved in North Pacific Fisheries. The
roles of these commissions are discussed below.

1. International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Established
by the United States and Canada to regul.ate the halibut fishery
off the coasts of Washington, Alaska, and Canada.

2. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC)
Established by the United States, Canada, and Japan to
coordinate fisheries research and to manage fisheries in
the North Pacific. The enabling treaty was renegotiated i n
.1976 and the INPFC present management role is confined to
the Japanese salmon fishery which occurs beyond the 200 mile
limit.

3. International Salmon Commission In the process of being
established by the, United States and Canada to coordinate
management and allocate transboundary salmon stocks.

F. Department of Transportation

1. Coast Guard

a. Enabling Legislation

1. Coast Guard Act of 1949
2. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976,

b. Responsi bil ities

1. Enforces fisheries regulations on foreign and domestic vessels
in the Fishery Conservation Zone.

G. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Enabling Legislation

a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
b. Clean Water Act of 1977
C. National Environmental Policy Act

2. Responsibilities

a. General pollution control and abatement through monitoring, research,
and regulations..

b. Prepared the guidelines for 404 permit.,review, included protection
of shellfish beds.

C. Regulates the discharge of processing wastes.

@64

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Institution
Active in The Following

(2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs.
Alaska Aqua.cOlture Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 1288
Wrangelir Alaska 99929
Tod Jones
907/874-2013
X X
X

Alaska Chapter Sierra Club
P.O. Box 2025
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Jim Barnett
907/265-0432 or 907/349-1720
X

cr) Alaska Conservation society
P.O. Box 80192 College Branch
Fairbanksr Alaska 99708
Mr. Ed Murphy, President
907/452-2240
X

Alaska Federation of Nativer,
1675 C. Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Byron Mallott
907/586-1512
X X

Alaska Independent Fishermen's
Marketing Association
6333 Sugar Maple Street
Olympia, Washington 98503
X
l/ So.urce for Private Institution Section is An Analysis of Selected Elements of the Alaska Salmon
Resource Development Program, Miller and Associatet, December 1979.

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Alaska Trollers Association
P.O. Box 825
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Sharon Newsome x

Alaska Wildlife Federation and
Sportsmen's Council
1700 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801 x x x x

Aleutian/Pribilof Island Association
1689 C. Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
James D. Milne, Phd., Director Fisheries Program x x
907/276-2700

Association of Village Council Presidents
P.O. Box 219
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Carl Jack, John Malone, Harold Sparcs x x

Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 237
Dillingham, Alaska, 95706
Ted Angason, Executive Director
907/842-5250 x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocay Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Bristol Bay Native Assocation
P.O. Box 179
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Andrew Golia
907/842-5257/5258 x x x x

Burro Creek Farms
P.O. Box 8324
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Eugene Richards
Home 907/225-2405 Bus. 225-9696 x

Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indians of Alaska
Division of Fisheries and Nautral Resources
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 200
Dr. Nayudu 907/586-1432 x

Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 850
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Floyd Heimbuch
907/262-4441 Ex 257 x x x

Cook Inlet Native Association
1057 West Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Jake Lestenkof, Executive Director x

Institution Active In the Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocay Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Copper River Native Association
Drawer H.
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Tom, Craig, Executive Director
907/822-3949 x

Cordova District Fisheries Union
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Bob Blake
907/424-3447 or 7473 x x x x

Douglas Island Pink & Chum, Inc.
RR 4, Box 4754
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Ladd Macaulay
907/789-9443 x

Fairbanks Environmental Center
431 Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
John Adams, Executive Director
907/452-5021 x x

Fish Fry, Inc.
Southeast Gillnet Federation
583 Basin Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Jev Shelton
907/586-2242 x x

Institution
Active In The Followin2

(2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing, salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs
Haida corporation
Box 91
Hydaburg, Alaska @9992'9
X

Halibut Producers Cooperative
P.O. Box 1235
Bellingham, Washington 98225
206/733-0120
X

Huna Totem Corporation
Box 290
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
.John Hinchman, Jr., President
907/945-3330
X
X

Hungwitchim Corporation
Eagle,
Alaska 99138
X X

Ingalik, Inc.
Anvik, Alaska 99558
907/4,62-8001
X

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabiliation Enchancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Izaak Walton League
336 East 23rd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 x x

Juneau Aubudon Society
P.O. Box 1725
Juneau, Alaska 99801 x x x x

Juneau Group of the Sierra Club
Route 6, P.O. Box 3552
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Dr. Clifford Lobaugh, Chairman x

Kake City Schools
Kake, Alaska 99830
Chuck Larson
907/785-3741 x

Kaek Nonprofit Fishery
Development Corporation
P.O. Box 263
Kake, Alaska 99830

907/785-3221

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enchancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's
Cooperative Association
Rt. 2, P.O. Box 752
Soldotna, Alaska 99669 x x x

Klawock Heenya Corporation
P.O. Box 25
Klawock, Alaska x

Kodiak Area Navitve
P.O. Box 172
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Bill Osborne x x

Kuitsarak, Inc.
Goodnews Bay,
Alaska 99620 x

Mauneluk Association
P.O. Box 256
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Bob Knoll, EDA Planner
907/442-3311 x x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities

Meyers Chuck Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 15
Meyers Chuck, Alaska 99903
Robert Meyer x

National Park Service
540 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Ross C. Kavanagh
907/271-4215 x

Nerka, Inc.
P.O. Box 80165
College, Alaska 99708
Dr. Jack Van Hyning
907/479-2476 x x

Nondalton Native Corporation
Nondalton,
Alaska 99640 x

Northern Southeast Regioinal
Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 786
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Dr. Derek Poon
907/747-6850 x x x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities

Numan Kitlutsisti
P.O. Box 267
Bethel, Alaska 99559 x

Petersburg Gillnet Association
P.O. Box 535
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Alan Stein
907/772-3151 x x

Pacific Seafood Processors Association
120 West First Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Richard B. Lauber, Alaska Manager
907/586-6366 x x x

Prince William Sound
Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 1110
Cordova, Alaska 99574
907/424-7511 x x x x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Ruralcap
P.O. Box 3-3908
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Norman Cohen
907/279-2511 x

Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza
Juneau, Alaska 99801
907/586-1512 x

Shee Atika, Inc.
P.O. Box 578
Mt. Edgecumbe, Alaska 99835
907/747-3534 x x x x

Sheldon Jackson College
Aquaculture Program
P.O. Box 479
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Mel Seifert x x

Sand Point Aquaculture Association
P.O. Box 132
Sand Point, Alaska 99661
Robert W. Barclay
907/383-3545 x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
419 Sixth Street, Suite 321
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Stephan C. Volker, Esq.
907/586-2751 x x

Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 1692
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Leonard Steinberg x x

Southeast Alaska Seine Boast
Owners & Operators
728 Water Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Michelle Zerbetz
907/225-0618 x x

Southern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association
307 Mill Street #5
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Ron Wendte x x x

Stikine Gillnet Association
P.O. Box 131
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
Bill Byford x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

Tanana Valley Sportsmen Club
SR, Box 30202
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Joe Nava x

Tenana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
First & Hall
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Eddie Mayo or Henry Mitchell
907/452-8251 ext. 65 x x x

Tongess Conservation Society
P.O. Box 7282
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Peter Mjos
907/225-2275 x x

Twin Creek Salmon Ranch, Inc.
P.O. Box 90
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Darline M. Clausen
907/772-3282 x

United Fisherman of Alaska
197 South Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
907/586-2820 x x

Institution Active In The Following

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Rehabilitation Enhancement of Advocacy Other related
of existing salmon runs activities activities
salmon runs

United Fisherman of Alaska
197 South Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
907/586-2820 x x

United Southeastern Alaska
Gillnetters Association
328 West 10th
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Geron Bruce
907/586-3864 x x x

Yugtuk Corporation
P.O. Box 666
Bethel, Alaska 99550
Thad Tikiuw
907/543-2647 x

COASTAL FISHERIES IN STATE AND LOCAL
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the manner and extent to which fisheries resources and
their utilization are addressed by the Coastal Management Program at the local,
regional, and state levels. This discussiGn pr ovides the foundation for the
analyses of weaknesses in the current program and the possibilities for ex-
panding the program's fisheries role during the second phase of the study.
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program and the process of coastal plan development. Background information
on these subjects may be found in the series of guidebooks on the program
produced by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. . The di-scussion
..is divided into an examination ofseven local plans and*brief review of plan-.,
ning at the regional and state levels.

FISHERIES PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

The focus of the Alaska Coastal Management-Program is the development of
coastal management plans by local communities (coastal districts). Table 11
summarizes the progress which has been made in developing district plans. The
following discussion is based on an examination of the plans from the following
coastal districts which were either complete or in advance draft form as of November
1980: Annette Island, Anchorage, Haines, Cordova, the Kenai Borough,' Yakutat-,, and
Skagway. The last four plans are still subject to change and are included to-:provide
a broader base for discussion.

The fisherJes planning role played by district plans is to a large extent
dictated by guidelines and standards established by the Coastal Policy. Council
for plan development. According to the guidelines,. district plans must include
ten elements. The following seven-of these are discussed in this paper in terms
of their relevance to fisheries planning: 1) a resource' inventory; 2) a resource
analysis; 3) a boundary definition; 4) a statement of community needs, objectives
and goals; 5) a discussion of the uses which are subject to the Council ' s stand-
ards; 6) a discussion of proper and improper uses; and 7) land and water use
policy statements. The Council's standards will be described during the dis-
cussion of the-f-i-fth element li@_tedabove.

The standards and guidelines allow considerable flexibility in plan devel opment.
The following discussion@examines each of the above plan elements usi'ng examples
from specific plans to illustrate the range of.'applicatons.of each element to;-:
fisheries issues. The discussion concludes with a summary statement of the.'
fisheries planning. role played by the district pl an s.-

The Resource Inventory

The Alaska Coastal'Management Act (ACMA) requires a resource Inventory which describes
the habitats covered by the habitat standards, the major land and water uses and
activities in the area, land ownership and resource management responsibilities.
The
need for additional information and the emphasis to be placed on different aspects of
the inventory are specified in the contracts between the Department of Community and,
Regional Affairs and the districts (or their consultants).

~qM~qW
~~

~J~,
~1~1~z~i ~r~e~l A.
~'~qo

Table 11. PROJECTED DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MILESTONES ~-1~q0/l/~q8~q0 MINOR ~qR~qEV~qIS~8qI~2qO
Prepared by OCM in Cooperation with DCRA

DISTRICT 1980 1~q981 ~q1982 19~q83
Ist~' ~q2nd 3rd 4th Ist 2nd 3rd~, 4th Ist 2nd. 3rd. 4th 1st 2nd~, 3rd 4th
~l ~~t~ian CRSA(s) A 2 3 4 5 6
~l~~n~~or~~~~ ~N~unic~ip~alit~qX of 5 ~6 7,8 ~q1
~@~~~~nn~tte Island ~q5 6
~~@~~r~n~ Straits C~RS~A 2 3 4 5
~I~~~th~~l~ City of 2 3 4 5 6 7
~it~~i~t~l Bay Borough 2 3
Bay ~qC~q~'~qS~~A A 4
~ 2 3 4 5
~1p~p~p~~~p~~ty of 3 4 5 6 7
~_~/K~l~~~aoc~qk~, Cities of 3 4 5~,3a 4a 5a
I ~~(~@~qF - ~q_~qZ
~@~2p~440;4336;140;124qf~qfin~~F~~, city of*
~i~f~~~S~~in~s, City of ~q5 6 7 8
~~~~~~~h, City of
~~~~~~~~b~~r~~ C~~' 2 3 4 5 6 7~
.~2p~ ~1t~v of 2 1 3 4 6 7
~~~~ 3 4 1 1 ~r
~[~~~~e~ City of 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
~~
~~n~~ P~ninsu~qla ~B~orou~c~qh 3 4 5 6 7 ~q1
Ga~qfe~way Borough 2 ~q_3 ~_~0qT~q_ a- -4~a ~b~a ~b 7
King Cove, City of**
~~ ~~a~ Island Borough ~q1 2 3 4 5
~`~t~nus~k~- Susitn~a B~oro~u~oh 3 ~q_4 ~8q7~q- 7
~n~ C~SA
~A~~~r~~~ City of ~3 4 5 4 5 6
Slope Borough ~q- 6 7
2
~f~~~rth~rn S~( (U~qN ~:ERTA~qUNL_
1 2~' 3 4 5 6 7
~~P`~e~qT~e-~sbur~@-Cit~V of 1 ~q1 2 4 5 6 7 1
j~Tr~bi lot Is a ~s ~0qN A B 4 ~5 ~6
Prince ~1~~~ jam ~qS~ou~n~qd~~C`~qR~q5A(s) (UN ~E~R~IA~II~-~A)
~~ndPoint, City, of**
~SJ_t~~~ City & Boro~t~j~qh 2 6 7
~qity of ~1 4 5 6 7 7
~R~~~t~'~qOeyrn' SC~outhe~ast CRSA~qC~S) (U~r~ql ERTA
ask a City ~ot**
~P I ~t~y of 2 3 4 5 6 7
~1p~ 3 4 5
~~~~~~~~~~~1~1~ City of
I ~ 1 2 6
~~~~ut~t~ C t~v of 5 1 6
~[~L~~on~l Ku~~~o~k~v/~qim CRSA 1~2 ~q- ~ I ~@~k 1 3 1 4 1 15 -A I
* The City of Dillingham has tentatively indicated A. Education 2. Issue Identification ~.5. Council A
its desire to remain part of the Bristol Bay CRSA. KEY- ~qB. Organization 3~.. Draft Program ~- ~2p~ L~e~qg~qislati
Will probably be included in the Aleutians CRSA(s). 1. Program Development Grant 4. Concept Approval 7. Local Ado
~qf~q16
7
5 6 ~2q@~q7
~2q@~qA

~q4~q1~ ~f~ ~i~ql
~i~j
~"~.~1~, ~q4
~qj~,~qj ~i ~q:~i
~q3~q. ~qf~ ~qi :~qt
~q%
~qt~qK

In general, the inventories provide much detailed information about the local
fisheries. For example, the Kenai Borough Plan uses data from the Department of
Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, International Halibut
Commission and Department of Labor to describe the commercial, sport and sub-
sistence fisheries. The plan reviews the status of stocks, harvest trends, fishing
effort and fishermen's income and describes in detail the area's processing sector.
The other plans describe local harvesting and processing sectors also, although not
in as great detail as the Kenai Plan. Maps are usually provided which identify
anadromous fish streams and lakes hatchery sites,.distribution of marine fish
and shellfish, and important harvest areas.

Most plans inventory their area's habitats using maps which identify the different
types of habitat and narratives which give examples of the different categories.
All of the plans discuss the relationship of fisheries' resources to specific
habitats, although to varying degrees.

The following excerpt.ill-ustrates one extreme; a very general description of
habitat/resource dependency: "estuaries are highly productive and are extensively
used by fish and shellfish as nursery grounds." More detail. is. provided in the
following case since specific areas are identified: "there are important herring
spawning areas at the offshore area at the head of Puget Cove!" And at-the other
extreme a quantitative appraisal is provided; as seen in this excerpt from the
Annette Island plan's description of the area's eelgrass ecosystem. "Approxi-
mately 55% of the island's documented herring spawn was depasited on eelgrass
Another example of the quantitative approach is found where plans indicate annual
returns to or the contribution to annual salmon harvest of specific river systems
(see for example the Yakutat and Cordova Plans).

In general, the discussions of habitat-resource relationships contain level of
detail somewhere between the first and second examples. The level of detail of,
these discussion in this section of the plan may determine the usefulness of
the resource inventory for planning purposes because later sections of the plan
deal almost entirely with land use policies and planning. If the relationship
.is not established to a degree which enables the reader to evaluate the impact
of these policies and regulations upon the resource than the extensive inventory
of fishing activities has little valoe, For example, there is little value in
I knowing the annual harvest of salmon if the reader is unable to determine to
what extent anticipated developments might alter that harvest level. The guide-
lines for plan developm ent provide a vehicle for this type of assessment in the
"Resource Analysis".

The Resource Analysis

The guidel'ines require the Resource Analysis to 1) assess potential changes in the
demand and use patterns for the habitats and resources which were described in the
inventory and 2) evaluate environmental capability and sensitivity of these resources
and habitats for land and water uses. Although it is not stated it should be assumed
that the environmental sensitivity evaluation should, to some extent, address the
anticipated changes in demand and use patterns.

The plans generally assess changes in demand and use patterns for resources but
fail to discuss these changes for habitats or adequately evaluate environmental
capabilities to accommodate such changes. The analysis of changes in use patterns,
the demand for habitats and environmental capability are examined below in greater
detail.

Changes in Demand and Use Patterns for Resources

The plans provide a diverse range of information on use patterns and demand
for fisheries resources. One of the seven plans make no forecast of changes in
the areas fishing industry. A second, notes the absence of commercial fishing
in the area and discussess the growing demand for recreational fishing and the
opportunity for meeting this demand through enhancement projects.

Four plans discuss allocation problems created by increased recreational demand,
or introduction of new gear types or fishermen from other areas into a fishery
upon which community residents rely. While these problems are beyond the scope
of the district planning process, they indicate the kind of problems created by
management of fish populations which concern coastal districts.

Some assessment of the likely expansion into new fisheries is provided in the
plans which address fisheries. The effects of a possible expansion of the bottom-
fish fishery are discussed by the Kenai, Cordova, Yakutat and Annette Island
plans. These discussions generally summarize the results of studies conducted
by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs and consultants hired by
the communities themselves. Fisheries for other underdeveloped species such
as clams, scallops and dungeness crab are also addressed by some plans.

It is difficult to determine how useful these discussions are for planning pur-
poses. It was noted above that allocation problems are beyond the scope of the
district plans so the discussions on these topics are not used for planning.
There are limitations to the remaining information which are illustrated by the
following two examples. The Yakutat plan concludes in its resource analysis that
there is not likely to be further development or king crab or shrimp fisheries
in the area. Shortly after the draft plan was circulated, development in both
these fisheries had occurred and was of concern to the community.

The second example concerns planning for fisheries development within the Kenai
Area. The plan discusses the possibilities of a domestic groundfish industry
but does not forecast the bankruptcy of a major processor in the area. In both of
these examples significant occurrences within the industry which directly effected
the community were not addressed by the resource analysis. This shortcoming may
be difficult to overcome since information from the private sector may be difficult
to obtain.

Changes in Demand for and Use of Habitats

Only one plan assesses the changes in the demand for and use of different habitats
and that assessment is limited to the observation that "continued residential,
commercial and light industrial activity (adjacent to an estuary) should not
cause any serious changes or demands on this habitat." The ommission of even such
a limited evaluation in the other plans weakens them considerably.

In addition, this ommission is unnecessary in many cases. For example, one plan
recommends in its introductory discussion that a tideland area be filled to permit
expansion of processing operation. It would not have been difficult to di scus s the
desired fill and other likely demands for tidelands in the resource analysis.

Evaluation of Habitat and Resource Sensitivity

Three of the seven plans have no evaluation of the sen sitivity of resources and
habitats and their capacity to absorb changes in demand. One plan briefly discusses
the sensitivity of the local fish stocks noting that herring are "particularly
vulnerable to environmental changes"and have been subjected to "intense fishing
pressure" in the area. With regards to salmon this plan states-that there is not
enough escapement data for local streams to determine. whether or not the local
fishery has a significant impact on localruns.

The three remaining plans provide limited discussions of habitat sensitivity
The first of the remaining plans for example discusses possible development prob ms
in each habitat category. The following excerpt indicates the level of detail
in these discussions: "Lake fronts and stream banks are attractive for and sensitive
to residential and recreational development".

The second of the remaining plans does not discuss the sensitivity of specific
habitat per se. The plan instead describes the methodology it uses for judging the
compatability of specific uses with specific areas. One of the criteria for this
,judgement is the "vulnerability" of each area to different uses. The classifica-
tion system which results from this methodology categorizes the following habitat
as the most sensitive to change: selected freshwater wetlands, tidal creeks and
falts, saltwater marshes and coastal habitats which are used for spawning and
rearing.

The third plan contains a land and water classification system which is simil-ar
o the above. In addition this plan reviews fifteen major industrial development
projects ranging from offshore oil exploration and coal development to fisheries
processing -facilities. . Brief descriptions of the anticipated impacts in terms of
jobs created, new construction required, demand on community facilities and services
and environmental risks are provided for each project. While this review was a good
idea it d on on either thp dp
,@'these projects will place on specific habitat orAhe--cap-acity of the environmen" to
eader is through with tFis presenta-
tion he knows little more than that these development will have some impact on
habitat and that two proposed hydroelectric projects will effect salmon popula-
tions.

The absence of detailed habitat sensitivity information weakens the plans,in two
ways. First, the remaining sections lack support and there is no apparent justi-
fication for policies and land use designations. Second, the inventory is devalued
since much of the information cannot be used. These weaknesses have been recognized
and at least three projects have been undertaken.to collect information to enable
site specific coastal planning. These studies deal with the Kenai wetlands, Homer
Spit area in Kachemak Bay, and the urbanized area in the Muncipality of Sitka.
t

Qsorb @tese

F7.

Boundary Definition

Each plan must define the boundaries within which the plan will apply. The
boundaries cannot be larger than the political boundaries of the district or
municipality. Before the plan is approved by the Council the boundaries must con-
form with boundaries established by the Department of Fish and Game for each
coastal area. Final boundaries may diverge provided that they are broad enough
to manage uses and activities which influence coastal waters and include all
transitional and intertidalareas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands
and beaches.

In three of the plans the coastal management boundaries are the same as the
political boundaries for that coastal district. The remaining plans adopt
landward boundaries which are narrower- than the initial boundaries established by
the Department of Fish and Game. -These narrower boundaries, however, include
streams for anadromous fish and a 50-200 foot buffer zone around-these streams
In all cases the seaward boundary is the broadest which is allowed. The justif'ication
for narrow boundaries is that they.focus the program on the most cirtical areas in
the coastal zone.

The process of defining coastal boundaries has certain implications in planning
for fisheries. In the smaller districts such as Haines, Yakutat Skagway,-and
Cordova much of the commercial-, subsisten*ce,.and recreational fishing as well
as development activities which impact, fisheries habitats occur beyond the.
planning boundaries. The Yakutat plan explicitly addresses this problem by adopting
the broadest permitted planning boundaries and declaring the communities intent
to use the ACMA's consistency clause, the coastal plan and specific policies to,
influence State and Federal timber and hydrocarbon lease sales.

Goals and Objectives

The guidelines for plan development require district plans to include a statement',
of the district's goals and objectives with regards to coastal management. All
but one of the plans state goals and objectives which pertain to fisheries. These
fisheries goals and objectives are usually quite general. The following list il-
lustrates these more general goals and! objectives:

1) to promote the sustained yield management of fisheries resources;

2) to resolve conflicts between fi@heries and other resource utilization.
and development;

3) to balance conservation and development;

4) to encourage the development and diversification of processing facilities;,
and

5) to support subsistence, recreational, and commercial fishing in the area.
In some cases more specific objectives are stated. For example, the' Skagway.Plan
specifies the intent to encourage tourism by developing their recreational fisher-
ies. Yakutat Plan states the communities objective of having public lands man-
agement in the area give a priority to traditional uses and the conservation of

7. 1:@@

fish and wildlife. These'examples are exceptional, however, and the level of
generality in the statement of goals and objectives may limit their value in
focusing the plans.

Subject Uses

The ACMA establishes standards for the following three uses and activities which
are directly related to fishing: recreation, siting of facilities related to
commercial fishing and seafood processing, and subsistence. The standards and
g Z i
,@idelines require that district plans include, descript ons of these uses and.
identify areas where they presently occur and locations whIcF_are-`s0-iTa_F1_e for
V@X'pansion of these uses. While coastal districts must designate subsistence
and recreation areas where no dev@I_opme`n_t__o_r__RlTe-r disturbing activities may occur,
they caDnot directly control the harvesting of fisheries resources which occur in
the c6asn-larea.

The plans have almost uniformally satisfied these use standards by the descrip-
tions in the resource inventory. In three cases no subsistence activity occurred
within the planning boundaries. Most of the plans describe or map recreation
areas. There is a great deal of interest in describing fisheries related facill-
ties such as boat harbors and cold storage plants.

The remaining use standards deal with a range of development activities. These
standards are intended to restrict development of non-water dependent activities
in the coastal area and to minimize the environmental impact of all developments.
For example the standard for timber harvesting requires that free passage and
movement of fish be assured, and that other impacts on fish resources be mini-
mized. Similarly, energy facilities must be sited to allow free passage and
minimize spills that would affect fishing grounds.

Proper and Improper Uses and Use Policies

The guidelines for plan development require district plans to include a descrip-
.tion of proper and improper uses for the coastal area and land and water use
policies.

The Cordova, Kenai and Anchorage plans combine these elements by establishing land
and water use classifications with policies which are applied to each category.
For example, the Cordova plan defines fish spawning areas as a conservation area
and specifies which uses are proper and improper for the conservation areas. The
Skagway and Haines plans zone for commercial, industrial and residentail uses and
specify proper and improper uses for particular areas.

The most noteworth plan in terms of its approach to fisheries is.the Yaku
y
Plan which adDji @sa broad I IICY that assigns first priority to con-
Ln PO
_@rvation of. fish and requires It
s w i I dl i gf3e haaki Ltats. UnTeratVis policy the plan hat.
d-eTa-iled re-source evaluation-s-a-n-d--f-im-5-er management plan must be prepared before
logging or hydrocarbon development may occur. As noted earlier the community
J er and hyd
hopes to use these regulations to influence timb rocarbon sales beyond
their.planning boundaries.
While local districts are required to specify appropriate uses for the coastal area
they may not arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict a number of activities which have
been designated by the ACMA and the Policy Council as "Uses of State Concern".,

These uses include,uses of national interest such as the siting of ports, energy
facilities, national defense installations and uses which influence an area
greater than a single coastal district..

The following fisheries related activities in 'the coastal area have been defined
as Uses of State Concern: the harvesting, management,@and enhancement of fish-
eries resources; the conservation of anadromous fish waters; and uses in area
established as State parks, recreational or critical habitat areas. The Department
of Fish and Game reviews all plans to insur e that these uses and activities are
not restricted.

Areas Meriting Spe, cial Attention
District plans must recommend and propose management guidelines for areas which
merit special attention (AMSAs).: Six of the seven plans recommend AMSAs which
are concerned with fisheries. In general these areas are designated for their
habitat value or desirability as locations for fisheries related facilities such
as processing operations and boat harbors. The Skagway Plan creates a recreational
park in the area surrounding a put and take sport salmon fishery which is being
established by the Department of Fish and Game.

The management guidelines in these areas may be . very specific. For example, the
Yakutat Plan establishes 300 feet buffer zones around Ophir Creek, an anadromous
fish stream. The Annette Island Plan identifies two marine areas and their sup-
porting watersheds within which logging, mining, and dredging are prohibited.

Summary of Local Level Fisheries Role

The district planning process plays a role in fisheries planning which is inten-
tionally limited to habitat protection and the identification of areas which are
suitable for facilities which support the fishing industry and areas.which are
important to subsistence, recreational, and commercial harvesting.

Individual plans may emphas'ize particular aspects of this fisheries role. The
Haines, Kenai and.Cordova plans use the plan primarily to encourage the develop_
ment of processing and harbor facilities. The Anchorage Plan creates a classifi-
cation system which may further protect anadromous fish waters. Skagway plans
primarily for a recreational park which enhances a put and take sport fishery
established by ADF&G. The Yakutat and. Annette Island plans apply both the habitat
protection and fisheries development tools provided,by the standards and guidelines.

The preceding discussion has also noted some of the weaknesses in the plans as
planning documents.' These included the 41@_k of Continuity between
_.p3_dn_e1emants_,
and thhe inade-quALY of the resource analysis in many cases. These and other weak-
ne s wi be further 5-na-l-yzed @e seco-nd-s-tage-OTTFI-S -Project.

FISHERIES PLANNING AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

The ACMA directs the Coastal Policy Council to initiate an interagency regional
.planning pr r, to date there a,s
jMqram (Sec. 44.19.893 and 6 AAC 80.030); howeve
@e-@ennq Tish@777j=esplanning at the regional level under the Coastj_V_M@@nMemgn_t
Program.
i - TEe discu'ssion of wealMesses sues, R ppdrt@un fies nd fin@l rec -
commendations to the Coastal Policy Coundil (Tasks E and F) will analyze the fes-
ibility and desirability of using the regional planning process to' address fisheries
habitat management, fisheries infrastructure development, and other uses of State

8 5
- Am,."

concern (Fisheries enhancement, management, and harvesting).

FISHERIES PLANNING AT THE STATE LEVEL

There is presently no statewide planning process for fisheries within the ACMP.
However, the ACMP has established habitat standards and coordinates State review of
Federal activities, permitting and licensing programs and therefore plays a
fisheries role at the State level.

The program defines eight types of habitat which are subject to the ACMP. The
following six are important to maintaining fisheries population: offshore areas;
estuaries; wetlands and tideflats; exposed high energy coasts, rivers, streams,
and lakes; and important uplands. Each standard is designed to maintain the natural
processes associated with each area.@ For example,'estuaries are to be managed so
as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients and oxygen levels and avoid the des-
truction of important habitat, and the discharge of boxic substances. The standards
increase the ability of the Department of Fish and Game to monitor and guide devel-
opment in areas where they previously had little authority. For example, dredging
or other alterations of herring spawning areas may now be prohibited since sucfi
actions violate the habitat standard for offshore areas.

The ACMP coordinates the State review of Federal activities in the coastal area
Federal permitting, leasing, and licensing programs for activities occurring in
Coastal areas, and proposals for Federal assistance such as loan, grants or subsidies
Su ch coo rdination may be useful in protecting important fisheries habitat or ex-
pediting the approval of fisheries related facilities or activities such as the
construction of.processing facilities or small boat harbors.

STATE AND FEDERAL. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
AND REGUL.ATORY SYSTEMS

r7
INTRODUCTION

One objective of the Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program is to use the
Coastal Management Program as a means of coordinating State and Federa,v
fisheries management and regulatory processes. The purpose of thisXection
is to briefly describe these State and Federal. systems. T
cussion makes a dist nc tian.-between re r and management s. The
former promulgat"essthe regulations-fdr the harves ing sector, while the latter
implements them. The discussion is divided into three main sections. First,
the structure, process, and sources of information used in the regulatory and
management systems are described. Second, sources of descriptive statistics on
social and economic aspects of coastal fisheries are reviewed. Finally, thetopic.
of the relationship of State and Federal Systems is introduced. This presentation
is introductory in scope. Weaknesses in the present systems, opportunities for
improvement, and the applicability of the ACMP to -these problems'will be discuss'ed
during the next phase of.the study.

STATE REGULATORY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

There are two state systems for regulating and managing the harvesting sector of.
the fishing industry. The first s t o-requlates harvesting activities and is
responsible for the promulga on and implemen-tati n of a
area tions, and harvest levels. This system consists of
e oa 0 isheries Dep ment o 1@ Game, sixty local advisory
committees and is called th "Board Sistem" for purposes of discussion.@ The second
system, which consists of the isheries Entry Commission, regulates entry
into the fishery and is responsible for determining the proper number of,vessels,
for each fishery, establishing the criteria for allocating fishing permits among
fishermen, and administering the permitting process. Although there is coordina-
tion between the'Board and Commission, they are distinct systems and are discussed
separately.

The Board System: Regulatory Structure, Process, and Information Sources

The Board of Fisheries is composed of seven unsalaried members appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Legislature., The Board is responsible for deter-
mining the regulations for the fisheries within State jurisdiction (three miles)
and for selected domestic fisheries beyond three miles. The Department of Fish
and Game conducts stock assessment and other management related research. The
Department serves as scientific staff,to the Board. The Department is the
primary agency responsible for implementing the Board's regulations.. This man-
agement function will be described later in the discussion. There are sixty
,local advisory committees throughout the State. Any community may request that
such a committee be established for their area. These committees propose reg-
ulations for the fisheries in their area and provide feedback to the Board on
proposed regulations.
led a s' ems T
_g@ r ' sy m@anagement Th
and
t
or s-
t rv@
s I a s c@
he @ha e n e tor. @while @the la

area ns' ar
0
ti 0@
e he rie S' Dep en :@&A
1 t 0 S@
0 iss @ca le Ii@-, m a tr d
comm ittee s and i d
w ic c
svs t m @sis tS@
e h h on of the

8 7

Two major meetings are held by the Board each year with the fall and spring
meetings devoted respectively to formulating the regulations for finfish and
shellfish. These meetings generally last from three to six weeks. Three months
before each meeting proposals for regulations for the upcoming sea son are solicited
from the general public, advisory committees, and the mana"gement staff from the
Department. These proposals are distributed to interested parties before-the meet-
ing so that comments may be prepared.

Regulatory decisions are based upon the testimony presented during the meeting.
The testimony of the Department constitutes the biological information upon which
the decisions are based. This presentation'usually include's a discussion of the
past season's experience and the forecast of the stock' abundance for the coming
season. In the crab and herring fisheries, data provided to the Department by the
National Marine Fisheries Service may also be considered. The public may also
provide biological information.

Information on social and economic aspects of the fisheries is provided almost ex-,
clusively through public testimony. Advisory Committee representatives play a lead
in providing this imput but everyone is permitted to testify.-'This method of
providing information to the Board insures the maximum participation from tho S e
directly effected by the regulations but greatly lengthens the meetings.@. In general
descriptive statistics or other systematic presentationsof social and economic
data are not used by the Board to formulate regulations.

An important exception to the above generalization exists with regards to subsis-
tence. The Subsistence Law, which established subsistence fishing as a priority
use of the resource, has created a demand for new categories of social-and economic
information. As a result of the law the Board must evaluatefishing patterns and
determine whether they should be classified as "customary and traditional" and
given priority. The following types 'of information are useful or necessary in
making this determination: harvest areas, times, methods, species, stocks and levels
of productivity and efficiency. Much of this information is obtained through.public
testimony, however the Department's Subsistence Section has initiated a program
for systematically collect.ing social and economic data for the Board's use.
Following the testimon y Iby the Department staff, Advi sory Committees,. an d the gen-J
eral public, proposed regulations are discussed and voted upon by the Board in open
session. Regulations for the coming season are established by the end of the meet-
ing. The democratic nature, the accessibility and high visibility of the decision
makers, and the ability for the industry to plan seasonal operations due@to the-
certainty as to when regulations will be final ized are, positive aspects of the
Board system. The Board and the Department, however, are currently exploring means
of shortening the Board meetings without'losing vital loca,lJmput.and establishing
a clear record of the basis upon which-decisions are made.....I.These efforts.will be
examined further duringothe discussion of issues, weaknesses, and opportunities.

The Board System:' Management Structure, Process and Sources of Informa ion

The Commercial and Sport Fisheries Divisions of the artment of F*
are responsible for implementing the Board's regulations n-season monitoring of
fisheries is conducted by field stations. Management biologists in these stati
ions
@artment f F
s. a
ion @ns Oe a @sn mo iRi t o r @in a

and the Departmentis regional offices evaluate catch data collected from fishermen
on fish tickets and observe the fishery to determ.ine whether the stocks are as
healthy as indicated by the preseason forecast and whether these stocks will sustain
the rate of harvest for the duration of the season. The Commissioner of Fish and
Game is,authorized to change the opening or closing dates established by the Board
Jf this in-season monitoring indicates that stock abundance, fishing pressure, or
in the case of salmon fisheries, the timing of the return for spawning requires a
shorter or longer season.

The Entry Commission System: Structure, Process, and Information Sources.
T he Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission was.established by the State, Legi sl ature
in 1973.

The Entry Commission consists of three full time salaried Commissioners and a
support staff. The Commission determines which fisheries need to be limited,
establishes the maximum number of vessels allowed in a fishery and the criteria to
be used in allocating permits for those fisheries.

The legislation which created the Commission specified several fisheries which
were to be limited, as well as, the formula for setting the maximum number of
vessels to be allowed in the fishery (the number of vessels was not to exceed the
highest number of vessels which had fished duringi the four years before 1973). Ad-
ditional fisheries, have been limited, often at the recommendation of the Department
..of Fish and Game or the Board of Fisheries. In general, the Commission has used
the same formula (highestflumber of vessels in the four preceding.years) for deter-
ming the maximum number of vessels permitted in these fisheries.

The Commission relies on a number of sources for information. Extensive public
hearings are held during the determination of permits to be granted-for the fishery,
and the criteria for.allocating those permits.. Formal sources of data include
the Department of Fish and Game records and the Processor's Annual Report. and the
NMFS "Fisheries Market News" which includes the market prices for different species.
The Commission's research section has developed a file on the gross earnings for
specific fisheries using the above sources.

FEDERAL REGULATORY'SYSTEM- STRUCTURE, PROCESS AND INFORMATION SOURCES.

Since 1976 when the Fishery Conservation and Management Act was passed, the
federal govenment has had the authority to manage fisheries between 3 and 200
miles. An interim and-permanent regulatory processes were established by the Act.
The interim process was created to establish regulations for the foreign fisheries
during the period when the more lengthy permanent process was still deliberating.
Presently the Bering Sea Herring and Bering Sea Groundfish fisheries are being
managed under regulations f 'ormulated with the interim process. The following three
fisheries are subject to regulations formulated by the permanent regulatory process:
the Southeast Troll Salmon fishery, the Tanner Crab fishery and the Gulf of Alaska
Groundfish fisheries..

A key player within the Federal system is the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC). State officials from Washington, Oregon and Alaska fisheries
agencies, the Alaska Regional Director of the NMFS, and seven members appointed
by the Secretary of Commerce are voting members on the NPFMC. Of these seven,

P, 9

.. .............

five must be from the State of Alaska. Nonvoting members include representatives
from the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, the State Department, the Coast Guard,
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Council is responsible for
proposing regulations in formal planning documents called Fisheries Management
Plans. These plans must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce before the regu-
lations become effective. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated the authority
for plan review to the Assistant Administrator of NOAA for.Fisheries who has author-
ity for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The plans are prepared by ad hoc Plan Development Teams whose members are appointed
by-the Council. These teams have generally consisted of biologists from the
'Department of Fish and Game and NMFS, and representatives from the the fishing
industry, but have included biologists from the Washington Department of Fisheries
and the International Pacific Halibut Commission in cases where this expertise was
necessary.

Draft plans are reviewed by two standing committees of the Council, the Scientific
and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Advisory Panel (AP). The SSC is composed
of biological and social scientists from the Alaska and Washington state fisherie
s
agencies,, NMFS, and the Universities of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. The Act
requires this body to review plans to insure that the "best available data" is
used in formulating the regulations. The AP consists of experts from different
sectors of the fishing industry. Panel members may serve on Plan Development Teams
and are supposed to review proposed regulations and evaluate their impact on the
industry. The process may seem linear, proceeding step wise from plan develop-
ment under the team to plan review by the SSC and AP, approval.by the Council
and finally.review and approval by NMFS and the Secretary of Commerce. In practice
the process is much more iterative. The SSC and AP, and representatives of NMFS
may be involved at any stage of plan development. In many cases the Sbcretary
of Commerce may provide comments on a specific,regulation which has been approved
by the Council before the final plan has been submitted.
In general, biological data used in formulating regulations are -obtained from the@
NMFS and the Department of Fish and Game. Additional sources of such data vary
from fishery to fishery. The Alaska Troller's Association and the Washington De-
partment of Fisheries provide input for the Southeast Troll Salmon Plan. The latter
agency has been recently influential by providing information supporting a lower
quota for chinook salmon in Southeast. In the foreign fisheries (Tanner crab @nd
groundfish) data from the Fisheries Agency of Japan may be used. The International
Pacific Halibut Commission provides data for the groundfish fisheries.
The FCMA and its implementing guidelines have increased the demand for . information
on social and economic aspects of the fisheries. The Act recognizes the validity
of social and economic goals in fisheries management but requires the use of. "the
best available scientific information" in achieving these ends. In addition fe!deral'
guidelines requires a regulatory analysis which assesses the impact of proposed
regulations on the fishing industry and coastal communities.

Much of the required information is provided to the Council by industry experts
on the AP and through public testimony. For example, AP experts from the halibut
and domestic groundfish industry negotiated regulations between themselves which
would minimize -the incidental catch of halibut by groundfish fishermen without

completely closing the groundfish f i shery. Public testimony on a proposed closure
of the salmontroll. fishery was influential, in preventing the closure. During the
hearing virtually the entire community of Pelican testified against the closure,
claiming that this action would result in the closing of local processing facilities
which provided the major source of employment for the community. In many cases
this nonsystematic form of information is the only available -information for decision
making.
The Council'and the NMFS" however, are trying to more systematically evaluate,
social and economic factors Economists, have been hired. by these agencies to con-
duct in-house research. An example of this research and its influence on regulatory
decision making is the recent Council paper which evaluated the structure for
marketing Tanner crab and its effect upon the development of a domestic fishery
for this species. The analysis concluded with recommendations to eliminate the
Japanese fishery in order to increase demand for the domestic product. In addition
to this --in-house research the Council has obtained social and economic information
by contracting with universities and consulting firms on an issue by issue, fishery
by fishery basis. It should be noted 'that these studies donot all rely on descrip-1.
tive statistics in their analyses.

Federal Management: Structure, Process, and Information Sources.
The NMFS is technically responsible for implementing federal regulations. However,
the actual responsibility for in-season monitoring,of the fishery may be assumed
bythe Department of Fish and Game. The National Marine Fisheries Service plays
the lead role in monitoring the foreign fisheries. The principal source:o 'f infor-I
mation used in the management process -is the catch data collected by R4FS observers
which are stationed on foreign fishing vessels. The State plays the lead role in
managing the troll salmon, herring, and domestic Tanner crab fisherie,s. Sources of.
information used for inseason management used by the State were discussed earlier.

SOURCES OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON THE SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COASTAL FISHERIES

The preceeding discussion described the increased demand for social and economiic
data and the sources of information which have been used in filling thi
s demand
It was noted that this information has been provided usually either by public
testimony or in discussion papers which had little statistical support. There are
however, some of sources of descriptive statistics which are used in the regulatory
process. These sources are discussed below.

Data on Harvesting and Processing Sectors

The Department of Fish-and Game, the Entry Commission and the United States Depart-
ment, of Commerce routinely collect economic data on the harvesting and processing
sectors of the fishing industry.

The Department of Fish and Game produces a summary of annual catch and production
statistics for the commercial fisheries. The catch data is-compiled from -the fish
tickets completed by the fishermen for each sale of fish to a processor and include
the 1) catch and value to the fishermen, by area, region and gear type and 2)
fifteen-year comparative catch summaries which list the weight and value for each
species of salmon and shellfish. The production statistics are produced from the
Cornercial Operator' s- Annual Reports which are submitted by -'the processors to the
Department at the close of the season. These data include 1) the number of ope,
ating plants and employees for the year; 2) production figures and wholesale values
for- a variety of processed products (fresh, frozen, salted ' pickled); 3) a ten-year
summary of shellfish production and value by species and region; and 41) fiftee
year comparisons of canned shellfish and canned salmon production and value by
region.

The Entry Commission maintains a number of computer files which are used for
analyzing fishermen's gross,earnings. These files include gross earnings for
individual vessels and permit holders, specific fisheries, gear types and regions,
and categories of vessel sizes. Other files enable analysis of the residency of
permit holders. Much of this inforTnation is confidential, but may be used in
aggregated forms to protect privacy.

The Entry Commission, has completed a number of studies on specific fisheries
using these files and material collected from field surveys. These include 1).
summaries of cost and net return information for the Cook Inlet, Prince William
Sound and Bristol Bay drift gill net fisheries; 2) a bioeconomic data base for
Alaskan shellfish fisheries; 3) a description of income distribution from Alaska
fisheries; and 4) participation in the commercial sa.1mon.fisheries, of the Upper
Yukon.

Data from the Entry Commission is used in economic studies conducted by or for the
Legislature, the University of Alaska, fishermen's associations, and the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. These studies may be considered sources of
statistical infomati.on, although the statistical series are limited to specific
issues and time periods.

9 2

The U.S. Department of Commerce has several sources of statistical information.
The NMFS publishes the "Fishery Market News" three times a week. This newsletter
-containing information on imports and exports of fish products into and from the
Pacific Northwest and ex-vessel wholesale and primary producer wholesale prices
for a variety of species and processed products . Annual summaries of these
types of information are compiled in NVIFS publications. entitled Fisheries of the U.S.
and Fisheries Statistics of the U.S.

The Fisheries Management Plans developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council are also a source of statistical information produced under the auspices
of the Department of Commerce. This information is generally obtained from one of
the sources already discussed. and usually includes.income, product value, and mar-
keting information.

Data on Community and Regional Economics

J principal concern in analyzing the social and economic aspects of coastal fisheries
s a determination of the role of the fishing industry and specific, industry sectors
n local and regional economies. An understanding of this role is needed in order
to evaluate the impact of regulatolry--c@7CIS lull-, up :: n-unities. The mo-st
syst-e-m-a-t-i-c--attem-p-t--t-o-provi-de-tFe-sta-t-7i"@Tti-Ca-l-%-formWt'ion-use@d for such evalua-
tions is a study recently completed by Economist George Rogers (Measuri ng the
Socioeconomic Impacts of Alaska's Fisheries, Institued Social and Economic Research,
University of Alaska, April 1980). This study provides income, employment, and
other demographic information for eight Alaskan coastal regions. * Industries of.
importance to the economics of these regions are examined in sufficient detail to
determine the contribution of harvesting and processing sectors.in each case.

The study includes a useful discussion of the sources of information used in
-he Department of Fish and Game and Entry
assembling the data. In addition, to 1.
'Commission data discussed earlier, the study used population, employment and income
data from the U.S. Bureaus of.the Census and Economic Analysis and the Alaska Depart-
ment of Labor.

Data on International Markets and Trade

,.Fisheries development in the State of Alaska is focused upon species currently.
being harvested by foreign fleets. An understanding of international market
structures and trade patterns is needed in making decisions on foreign allocating,
which will promote domestic development of these fisheries. Statistical informa-
tion of this type is limited. The Department of Commerce sources which were noted
earlier are one source. A major effort to compile marketing and trade data for
king crab, and Tanner crab, salmon and groundfish is currently being undertaken by
the Sea Grant Program at the Universitly of Alaska and University of Oregon.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND FEDERAL SYSTEMS.

The need for coordination between the State and Federal regulatory and management
is obvious. Fisheries resources do not recognize the boundary which divides State
and Federal jurisdiction., The fact that before 1976 the State managed the domestic

9 3

@WF
NP

ee miles has created the need to define State an d, Fede
fisheries beyond thr
ral
and management rol es.
regulatory

bp;.
A degree of coordination between the two regulatory systems is insured by the
inclusion of the Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game on the Council and State
scientist
s on the SSC. In addition, the State has sought a Prominent role, in
the
Federal regulatory process by assuming the lead in plan ent for the
developm
troll salmon, Tanner and King crab, and Bering Sea herring fisheries. Joint
meetings between the NPFMC and Board of Fisheries to discuss proposed regqlations-
and to hear public testimony are increasing in frequency.

The NMFS has recently initiated a formal planning process to pursue better coordin-
ation between the State and Federal systems. The State/Federal action. plans which
are to be produced by the State will identify "measurable short-term, intermediate
and long-term objectives,-- programs-and activities." These will be used by. NMFS".
in their
budgeting process. A plan was prepared this year and accompanied the - -
NMFS budget request for $800,000. Most of this funding if it is received will
be
passed through to the State.

Although there are these mechanisms for coordination between State and Federal
systems, there are several unresolved issues between them. A constant problem
has been the lack of coordination between the timetables used for promulgating
regulations under the two systems. State regulations are generally established
1regulati
by the end of the Board Meeting at which they were discussed. Federa ons,
on the other hand, are not regularly produced and it is difficult to predict when
the process of review and Secretarial approval will be completed for a specific
N.f
fishery. A second source of difference between the two systems is the extent t
0
which they rely on different sources of data for decision making.. This problem hat""""'
been particularly significant in preparation of the-Bering Sea Herring Fishery where
State and Federal estimates of the biomass available for harvesting are, consider
ably different.

Q
@111*3,1@ tate
.,F, the two systems have occurred where the S
The most serious conflicts between
had traditionally managed the domestic fisheries beyond three miles (specifically
-n r
in the troll salmon, Tanner'and king crab fisheries. These problems in coordinating
the State and Federal regulatory processes will be examined further during the
second half of the CFAP study.

.7,

@! 2z@

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

6668 1411038
94