HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-2009 Salmon Task Force PacketSALMON TASK FORCE MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2009
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3:00 P.M.
AGENDA
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY -- January 5, 2009
ITEM 4: OLD BUSINESS
Discussion -- Ideas for Product /Process (Review issues related to
meeting Objectives One Through Five)
b. Discussion -- Tentative Schedule /Select meeting Dates & Times
c. Discussion -- Outreach
ITEM 5: NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion -- Other Issues
ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT
KENAI SALMON TASK FORCE
OBJECTIVES
Collect and distill information that provides a common history of the role of the
fishing industry in the City of Kenai, i.e. economic activity, relative importance
to Kenai, etc.
2. Identify current trends in fishing in the City of Kenai (commercial harvest and
processing, sport, and other fisheries, environmental, regulatory).
3. Identify trends in state management that directly impact the fishing industry
and, by extension, City of Kenai fish - related industry (tax base, employment
base, investment, etc.)
4. Identify current threats facing the fishing industry and how those threats might
impact City of Kenai interests.
Recommend action steps the City of Kenai might consider to ensure the long
term viability of the local fishing industry.
City of Kenai Salmon Task Force
From : Dwight Kramer — Member
I am going to concentrate my input on Threats as I see them, regarding both the Kenai
River and the City of Kenai.
Threats
Political
Cook Inlet Legislative Salmon Task Force
And
Mat -Su Mayor's Blue Ribbon Sportsman's Committee
Both of these organizations believe there is a need for more fish in Valley streams and the
way to accomplish this is to reduce or eliminate the commercial fishing effort. The
Legislative Task' Force has been exploring the idea of a buy back program of commercial
drift fleet permits, while the Sportsman's Committee suggests restricting the Central
District Corridor focusing commercial effort closer to shore near the mouths of natal
streams. Both of these suggestions would cause catastrophic results on Kenai and Kasilof
stocks.
Stable and sustainable Kenai Sockeye runs depend on commercial harvest to stay within
escapement guidelines to reduce the incidents of over - escapement, which can result in
lower future returns. Because of over- escapement in years 2003 — 2007, the Kenai failed
to meet minimum escapement goals in 2008 and forecasters tell us we can expect reduced
run strengths and possible restrictions to all users for the next several years. These swings
in sustainability can be reduced if we insist on escapement goal management. Records
show that during these years of abundance the liberalization of sport and personal use
harvest has not been effective in reducing the surplus fish adequately.
If the Legislative task force got their way and eliminated the drift fleet then the entire
necessary harvest would have to rely on beach side set net fisheries. Fishery managers
would have to fish the set netters almost constantly to harvest the appropriate number of
fish to avoid over - escapement. This would raise havoc on the Kenai and Kasilof personal
use and Chinook sport fisheries. Similarly, the suggestion by the Sportsman's Committee
to move the commercial effort near shore and closer to the mouths of the rivers would be
catastrophic to other in -river users.
The truth of the matter is that the total Cook Inlet commercial harvests only take about
40% of the Sockeye run, 2% of the Chinook run and less than 10% of the Coho run. It
should be understood that any increases to the Valley would only be incrementally
noticeable. Conversely, they would not only hurt future Kenai runs but cause devastation
to our diverse economy by putting many out of work who rely commercial fishing and
our processing industries. Not to mention the decrease in our tax base.
Records indicate that the total Sockeye harvest for Mat -Su streams is under 10,000 while
at the same time Valley and Anhorage residents enjoy the harvest of hundreds of
thousand of Sockeye from the Kenai and Kasilof fisheries. Personal use applications
indicate that about 70% of permit holders are from the greater Anchorage — Mat -Su area,
and a 2007 survey by the City of Kenai showed that of the 6,330 surveyed, approximately
90% were from outside the Kenai Peninsula area. This should illustrate how important
the Kenai fisheries are to Valley folks and why it is important to balance management
decisions to safeguard these stocks.
The main problem Valley residents face in their desire to harvest more fish is access. By
natures design, the Sustitna and Little Susitna systems make access difficult as they
sustain hundreds of feeder streams and lakes where there is no access. In places where
there is access crowding can result in undesirable conditions that many anglers shy away
from. The Mat -Su area desperately needs more access points and boat launches. The
Kenai on the other hand is like a big tube that easily accommodates the personal use and
sport fisheries with maximized opportunity.
Solution:
I believe the City needs to write a letter to the Legislative Task Force suggesting that they
move away from allocative issues that would negatively impact our fisheries, businesses
and economic well - being. The way they've approached this from the beginning has
demonstrated a complete lack of regard for our fishing industry, both sport and
commercial, as well as private users and the overall health of our resources.
Habitat
Hydrocarbons:
It seems like we have solved the hydrocarbon issues for the time being by eliminating 2
stroke motors during the heavy use July fisheries. We should ensure continued funding
for testing to make sure that any increases in outboard motor use don't take us out of
compliance again.
Turbidity:
Turbidity testing began in 2008 and showed a definite rise for concern. Robert will have
more for us on this issue. Turbidity issues may be more threatening than other habitat
issues because high levels have shown to affect juvenile fish species. Some of our salmon
stocks rear in the lower reaches of the Kenai for extended periods of time. My personal
observations are that for some reason turbidity has increased over the last several years.
One theory is that perhaps our riverbanks have eroded more with increased boat traffic. It
will be important to address this issue as we learn more about its impacts and levels of
incidents.
Increased Powerboat Use / Erosion:
We should assume that powerboat use will increase as our population grows and more
people participate in our sport and personal use fisheries. This will be difficult to
measure, but perhaps we can learn from some of the Western states that moved more in
the direction of drift boat fisheries. The City of Kenai has demonstrated a leadership role
in this endeavor by working toward helping establish another drift boat pullout on the
lower river. Erosion should be one of our biggest concerns because it can come upon us
by various natural events such as flooding or ice flows but recovery can be delayed by
continuous boat wakes. The City should participate in long range planning to deal with
this issue because it will be more problematic in the years to come.
Growth in the Personal Use Fishery / Dune Destruction / Vegetation:
The personal use dip net fishery has seen a continued growth. The City has taken
measures to help reduce dune and vegetation destruction. however, there may be a time in
the near future where we will have to determine just what is our carrying capacity for
people utilizing our beach areas for camping and dip netting. I would imagine that
intrusive damages can affect other parameter issues such as bird nesting, channel
changes, etc..
Home and Business Construction:
As the Cities of Kenai and Soldotna merge through continued riverfront construction it
may be necessary for the City to become more involved in ensuring construction projects
are in compliance with proper set backs and appropriate septic tank specifications. The
KRSMA board recently appointed a committee to be a watchdog on these issues. It was
apparent that the Borough was allowing too many variances and it became questionable
about their commitment to safeguard the River.
Approach to City of Kenai Fishery Task Force
Ken Tarbox
In response to the Chairman's request for input on process I have the
following suggestions.
1. For task 1 -3 we follow a procedure that may look like this — a) clearly
define the questions to be addressed and data requirements b) obtain the data
and reference the source if not a complete paper and file it with the City
clerk (copies to be made only upon request of task force member and data
must be relevant to the question); 3) agree on the data set as to the validity of
the data or the uncertainty in the data set; and 4) summarize the raw data into
useful figures and tables if not already in that format.
2. For task 4 issues and 5 recommendations — define issues both historical
and future that the City of Kenai could have or will want to participate in the
decision making process. For examples pick a few issues and provide a 1 -2
page summary which does the following — a) clear definition of the issue b)
identify lead regulatory or government agencies involved c) identify major
stakeholder groups d) present evidence on the issue e) make an assessment
of the issue — keep assessment independent of evidence (I personally do not
feel we will fill this section out in detail unless asked by the City) and f)
recommendations on the issue (again I am suggesting a process for the
future and do not anticipate we will be making many recommendations).
In our final product to the City of Kenai I see a report with a few examples
of where the City could have been involved and why they should have been
involved. For example the Mat /Su issue is a good example but we do not
have to get into what the position of the City should be. We can outline the
issue, data sources, stakeholders, evidence, and some assessment without
making a recommendation. Habitat issues on the Kenai River are another
example.
Relative to input from the public and notification of meetings I believe the
email /internet is the best way to provide outreach along with the City of
Kenai normal process for meeting notices. 1 do not anticipate lots of public
input except for the definition of issues portion of our work.
I like clear assignments and who is going to do the work.
Here are my suggested issues — I am sure it is not complete
I. Collect and distill information that provides a common history of the
role of the fishing industry in the City of Kenai, i.e. economic activity,
relative importance to Kenai, etc.
a) Prepare a time line of the major events impacting fishery issues in the City of
Kenai - start with federal management and proceed to the present - e.g. outlaw
of fish traps at statehood, escapement goal history for the Kenai River, start of
the personal use fishery, limited entry, and growth of the sport fishery.
b) Prepare tables showing commercial processor history with fish processed in
plants located in Kenai.
2. Identify current trends in fishing in the City of Kenai (commercial
harvest and processing, sport, and other fisheries, environmental,
regulatory).
a) Data are available on the harvest patterns and use patterns for the various
fisheries. I have some of that data already compiled from ADF &G reports. For
example, the number of permits fishing salmon over time, harvest of Kenai
River stocks and UCI stocks, escapement goal trends, growth of the personal
use fishery etc_,
b) Habitat trends are more difficult to quantify but should be identified. We
can show the history of population growth and development along the river, the
impacts of the personal use fishery on dunes, wetlands, and the species that rely
on them, hydrocarbon and turbidity impacts, and impacts on the ecosystem.
c) we should also show the trend for endangered species and if there are other
species that could impact the City of Kenai future - the treand of increasing
lake and streams being colonized by northern pike = an invasive species.
3. Identify trends in state management that directly impact the fishing
industry and, by extension, City of Kenai fish- related industry (tax base,
employment base, investment, etc.)
a) I have prepared a history of the regulations impacting salmon management
from the 1970's to 2004. This is primarily a Board of Fisheries history.
b) We should identify those regulatory actions that are under the in- season
control of the ADF &G and how the political landscape impacts those decisions.
c) We should identify the trends in habitat regulations or actions over time -
for example the 50 foot buffer along the Kenai River, the trend in the number
of variances to this buffer, the trend in development along the river, the
changes in zoning or land use patterns....
d) We should also look at federal management regulatory trends - endangered
species act, halibut IFQ's ( this could be put in the time line above), federal land
ownership and regulatory powers.
4. Identify current threats facing the fishing industry and how those
threats
might impact City of Kenai interests.
a) we should identify policies or actions that has resulted in the destruction of
Kenai River fish habitat - these include such items as the burden of proof
concept, geopolitical boundaries for decision making instead of watershed
boundaries, lack of an ecosystem view for decision making, failure to adapt to
changing conditions, failure to plan for the long term, and fractured regulatory
agencies.
b) Policy decisions that are made for short term political gain instead of long
term health of the resource - the current legislative task force is a good
example.
c) Unregulated growth of the fisheries without a concern for the sustainability
of the resource and /or the community..
d) Lack of scientific based decision making and the programs to gain or build
on scientific knowledge.
e) The creation of a culture of conflict because of user group conflicts over
allocation.
f) Failure to understand the temporal and spatial scales involved with fishery
management.
5. Recommend action steps the City of Kenai might consider to ensure the
long term viability of the local fishing industry.
a) I believe we can look at various cities around the Pacific Northwest as to
how they incorporate fishery issues into their administration structure and
fuction and decision making. This could take many forms.
b) The City should lead with a watershed management approach and
encourage other cities, the state, and federal agencies to partnership with the
City in watershed decision making.
SALMON TASK FORCE -- LIST OF PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED:
1. The Great Salmon Run: Competition Between Wild and Farmed Salmon, Traffic
North America.
2. Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in
Upper Cook Inlet, Kenai River Sportfishing Association.
3. 2007 Economic Study of sport fishing in Alaska due out in mid January, ADF&G
website link.
4. State of Alaska Seafood Economic Strategies, McDowell Group.
February 2009
COUNCIL /COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR
Sunday
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1
2
3
Library
Commission
Meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
4
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
5
i
8
9
Harbor
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
10
q
��' ym /4
11
PLANNING &
ZONING
COMMISSION
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
12
Airport
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
Council on
Aging meeting,
4:30p, Senior
Center
13
(% te-e
fried-
14
15
16
HOLIDAY/ ITY
OFFIC S
CLO D
17
18
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
19
Adv. Cemetery
Committee
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
20
21
22
23
24
25
PLANNING &
ZONING
COMMISSION,
7p, Council
Chambers
26
4r-e4 ire/
1_btip
27
28
'.
Jan 2009
S M T W T P ' S
Mar 2009
S M T W T F S
12 '3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21. 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30. 31
7. 2 9 4$ 6 7.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
March 2009
COUNCIL /COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thd[sday
Friday
Saturday
1
'
3
4
5
6
7
Library
CITY COUNCIL
Commission
MEETING, 7p,
meeting, 7p,
Council
Council
Chambers
Chambers
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Harbor
Beautification
PLANNING &
Airport
Commission
Committee
ZONING
Commission
meeting, 7p,
meeting, 7p,
COMMISSION,
meeting, 7p,
Council
Council
7p, Council
Council
Chambers
Chambers
Chambers
Chambers
,...% . - "'
Council on
4:30p, ng
Agi,
Aging,
r
n
Senior Center
p
47 - /t7,0 4lsS
r
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(*" / ` P✓
CITY COUNCIL
Adv. Cemetery
5.67 ,
MEETING, 7p,
Committee, 7p,
//
Council
Council
Chambers
Chambers
4> nit
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
y
PLANNING &
/41e
ZONING
*AG
COMMISSION
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
�'V ��~fff %%%
29
30
31
Fete 3009
Apr2009
S 'M T W T P 5
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7`
'1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
12 13 d4 15 16 17 18
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19 20 2I 22 23 24 25
26 27 .28 29 30
April 2009
COUNCIL /COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR
Sunday Monday Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
2
Parks&
Recreation
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
3
4
Mar2009
S M T W T F S
May2009
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 Al
1. 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 1314 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
5
6
Harbor
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
7
Library
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
....IV 9-,0:',70,4
....IV
/- f 6
8
PLANNING &
ZONING
COMMISSION
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
9
Airport
Commission
meeting, 7p,
Council
Chambers
on
Aging, 4:30p,
Senior Center
10
•
eitoogal
/-
11
12
13
14
15
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
16
ir
17
18
19
20
'r; •
,3.
21
22
PLANNING
ZONING
COMMISSION
MEETING, 7p,
Council
Chambers
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1U,.41 V1 V
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone - (907) 262 -4441 or (800) 478 -4441 or on the web www,borough.kenai _ ak _us
Kenai Peninsula Borough Commercial Fishing Industry
SALMON Permits and Fishing Activity by Area of Residence
Permit Holders Permits Issued Fishermen Fishing Permits Fished
Pounds Landed Gross Earnings KPB History Vessels by Activity
KPB SALMON - Number of Permit Holders
Residence
2002 1
411
2003 2004
40 371
2005
31
Anchor Point
Clam Gulch
29
251
251
24
Cooper Landing
..._. .- ........_...._..._._..._._.--
4
--- --......._...._.._._..-
4
- - --- — .._....�f _.__....----'-- --
6 5
English Bay
1
5
1 1
3 31.
1
5�
Fritz Creek
Halibut Cove
5
8 5
5
Homer
321
340 3391
346
Hope
1
11 1
1
Kasilof
141
1401 136
135
Kenai
213
[ 2161 218
207
Moose Pass
2
11 li
II
Nanwalek
5
51 5
5
Nikiski
50
461 49
121 11
47
9
Nikolaevsk
12
Ninilchik
46
501 49
50
Port Graham
11
11 10
10
Seldovia
141
33 33��
32
Seward
40j
36; 371.--
___
.
Soldotna
136
1261 126
125
Sterling
16
1911 18
21
Tyonek
20
1911 17
15
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
1,135
1,13411 1,128
1,111
State of Alaska Total
11,035
10.3%
10,85611 10,662
10,5941
10.5%
KPB as Pereent of AK
[ 10.4% i 10.6 %1
Source Totals may include data which excludes etmfidential. fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the dil
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
Residence
Anchor Point
Clam Gulch
Cooper Landing
English Bay
KPB SALMON - Number of Permits Issued
2002
2003
2004 2005
40{ 371
- -
2x,_ ._ °_._,.,..2—Th
26
4
5
1
http: / /www.borough.kenai. ak.us/Econ/1 S_P 3/420data/ Commercial %20Fishing%20Industry ... 1/20/2009
1NGW rttgc 1
Halibut Cove
Homer
Hope
Kenai
Moose Pass
Nanwalek
Nikiski
Nikolaevsk
Ninilehik
Port Graham
Seward
Soldotna
Sterling
Tyonek
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
State of Alaska Total
KPB as Percent of AK
rage L 01 V
5
5
339
1
148
3611
1
147
143
375
1
142
i._.
214
2
2171
22011
1
209
1
5
50
46
12
49
11
34
45
1371
16
121
5i? 5
4911 47
11€ 9
5611 54
42
127
191
1011 10
341 32
43i 40
128h 127
18h 21
i
201
1.172
191
1,1751
17
15
1,181i 1,161
11,612
11,496;
11,3421
11,282
10.1%
10.2 %?
10.4%
0.3%
Source Totals may include data wh ch excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the diff
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
KPB SALMON Number of Fishers Fishing
Residence
2002 j
2003
2004
2005
Anchor Point
251
25
25
19
Clam Gulch
251
181
23
(23) 20
Cooper Landing
31
41
5
4iL
Oj
English Bay
1j
1,
11
Fritz Creek
6
3
3
(5) 4
Halibut Cove
4i
7
4
4
Homer
2061
250
250
276
Hope
01
0
0
0
Kasilof
107
114
112
1071
Kenai
155
146
146
1521
Moose Pass
1
1
1
1
Nanwalek
41
4
1
0
Nikiski
441
391
38
38
Nikolaevsk
10
91
10
(8) 61
Ninilchik
32
40
36
321
Port Graham
01
21
3
2
Seldovia
181
19
23
221
25 1!
Seward
21
161
20
•
htt p: / /www.borough.kenai. ak.us/Econ/ 1 S_ P% 20data/ Commercial %20Fishing %20Industry... 1/20/2009
ivcw ragc 1
rage or 0
Soldotna
941
991
93
97I
(18) 151
2005
Sterling
91
151
16
Tyonek
71
411
1
101
18
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
774;
8131
818
8441
4
State of Alaska Total
6,5711
6,9551
7,105
9,8991
KPB as Percent of AK
11.8%1
11.7%
11.5%
8.5 %n,
Source Totals may include data which excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the di
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
KPB SALMON Number of Permits Fished
Residence
2002
2003
2004
2005
Anchor Point
24
25
25
19
Clam Gulch
25
18
23
(23) 20
Cooper Landing
3
4
5
4
0
English Bay
1
1
Fritz Creek
5
3
3
(5) 4
Halibut Cove
4
8
4
4
Horner
206
248
248
275
Hope
0
0
0
0
Kasilof
107
113
112
107
Kenai
155
146
145
150
Moose Pass
1
1
1
Nanwalek
4
4
1
0
Nikiski
44
39
37
38
Nikolaevsk
10
9
10
(8) 6
Ninilchik
32
40
37
33
Port Graham
0
2
4
2
Seldovia
18
19
23
22
Seward
20
16
19
24
Soldotna
93
99
91
99
Sterling
9
15
17
7
(18) 15
10
Tyonek
7
4
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
769
809
810
842
State of Alaska Total
6,645
7,007
7,179
7,508
KPB as Percent of AK
11.6%
11.5 %n
11.3%
11.2%
Source
Totals may include data which excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the di
that value and the following value is not included in total. activity.
Residence
Anchor Point
Clam Gulch
Cooper Landing
KPB SALMON Pounds Landed
2002
1,508,819
2003
1,484,662
2004
1,691,473
2005
2,120,656
X
X
X
1,106,001
88,247
775,650
90,852
121,529
http. / /www. borough.kenai. ak.us/Econ/ 1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing %20lndustry... 1/20/2009
new rage t
Eng
sh Bay
Pritz Creek
Halibut Cove
Homer
Hope
Kasilof
Kenai
Moose Pass
rage et 01 0
Nanwalek
Nikiski
Nikolaevsk
Ninilchik
Port Graham
Seldovia
Seward
Soldotna
X
X
X
0
227,402
156,256
30,245,766
X
426,511
33,195,907
X
153,663
35,995,879
117,126
152,234
56,590,026
0
5,362,563
5,505,701
Sterling
Tyonek
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
State of Alaska Total
KPB as Percent of AK
X
0
6,453,268
5,909,198
X.
0
5,272,289
10,603,558
X
0
8,031,077
10,768,431
X
52,702
1,525,835
84,246
1,272,076
X
1,240,367
0
1,426,571
357,786
1,134,871
228,028
,370,592
666,747
,549,492
221,288
1,246,666
0
X
X
X
928,576
990,874
715,614
4,245,088
3,912,744
2,529,685
5,357,395
1,140,407
5,184,387
821,020
2,283,725
6,113,299
255,161
407,865
1,559,963
725,636
6,038
56,585,524
X
60,924,905
X
67,316,885
34,930
93,195,218
523,940,841
635,835,025
697,891,658
872,577,336
10.8%
9.6%
9.6%
10.7%
Source
KPB SALMON Estimated Gross Earnings - in $
Residence
2002
2003
2004 I
2005 1
Anchor Point
486,709
1 432,290
680,3331
787,473
E
Clam Gulch
X
X
610,866
730,384
Cooper Landing
X
L 44,329
45,253
71,769
English Bay
X
j X
X
0
Fritz Creek
94,468; X
X
105,317
Halibut Cove
79,7201 795,197
97,5841
136,0641
Homer
7,462,316 11,421,694
12,191,282
17,149,665
Hope
0 0
0
0
Kasilof
1,666,2381 2,336,962
2,543,429
3,888;164
Kenai
2,632,461 3,347,527
6,071,3371
7,585,112
Moose Pass
X X
X1
X
Nanwalek
29,070 56,298
X
0
Nikiski
591,055 583,664
785,5321
1,162,583
Nikolaevsk
157,382; 118,146
366,602;
202,344
Ninilchik
548,2691 817,189
1,003,1351
1,029,818
Port Graham
0 r X
X
X
Seldovia
558,316 699,239
585,589
671,522
I
.
http: / /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/ 1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing %201ndustry... 1/20/2009
1,11.-,VV 1
cs5c J vs v
Seward
985,106
1 826,7651. 781,959}
1,119,855
Guided Fishing
Soldotna
1,580,473
1 2,062,6901
2,692,599!
3,257,767
Sterling
116,819
1 253,670
614,580
673,514
Tyonek
6,878
X
X
28,763
847
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
17,544,108
23,957,7761
29,302,019
39,959,909
848
State of Alaska Total
144,936,153
193,093,291
254,998,047
296,696,909
832
KPB as Percent of AK
12.1%
124%
11.5%
_ 13.3%
_
KPH All., FISHERIES - Permitting and Fishing Activity
# Permit Holders
# Permits Issued
# Fishermen Who
Fished
,.
#Pt.. 'its Eshed
Pounds
Landed
E
2006
1,409
2,138
1,010
1,337
12,769,410
2005
1,399
2,163
1,043
1,414
138,982,655
2004
1,445
2,231
1,038
1,403
112,198,682
2003
1,468
2,253
1,059
],428
102,080,762
2002
1,473
2,308
1,029
1,393
104,300,781
2001
1,536
2,541
1,103
1,572
97,664,278
2000
1,548
2,657
1,180
1,688
101 217 189
, ,
1999
1,530
2,694
1,189
1,681
107,951,549
1998
1,544
2,874
1,188
1,758
97,721,128
1997
1,561
2,991
1,263
1,944
102,657,508
1996
1,556
2,920
1,265
1,945
95,764,044
1995
1,590
3,072
1,286
1,970
110,267,702
1994
1,697
3,475
1,334
2,267
104,987,402
1993
1,736
3,614
1,380
2,264
105,019,756
1992
1,899
4,033
1,505
2,616
148,081,710
1991
2,008
4,166
1,555
2,614
102,442,236
1990
2,117
4,262
1,645
2,532
100,561,369
1989
2,082
4,180
1,374
1,855
101,523,638
1988
2,095
4,320
1,644
2,646
108,011,211
1987
2,041
4,157
1,602
2,661
111,922,827
1986
1,912
3,506
1,442
2,094
84,972,391
1985
2,008
3,626
1,341
1,975
84,352,451
1984
2,140
3,841
1,423
2,070
74,880,437
1983
2,196
4,035
1,525
2,130
80,374,719
1982
2,143
3,969
1,442
2,031
87,645,932
1981
1,955
3,852
1,316
1,927
79,108,143
1980
2,020
3,974
1,342
1,944
67,644,535
Source
Total Number of Vessels in KPH by Activity
Freezer/Canner
Tender/Packer
Guided Fishing
Commercial Fishing
2006
2
56
955
2005
2
86
972
2004
2
92
847
1.052
2003
2
89
848
1,091
2002
2
106
832
1,091
http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/lS_P%20data/Commercia %20Fishing%20Industry... 1/20/2009
INCW rage 1
ragc v vi v
2001
3
101
828
1,190
2000
5
120
811
1,243
1999
5
131
797
1,288
1998
5
127
743
1,366
1997
5
144
715
1,491
1996
8
148
682
1,539
1995
14
147
578
1,604
1994
14
158
523
1,676
1993
14
156
480
1,730
1992
14
173
513
1,913
1991
10
184
483
2,057
1990
9
193
460
2,150
* - Vessels can be used for more than one activity and can use multiple gear types. As a result, in these categories a vessel m
multiple times. Some vessels may not be counted at all if the activity or gear information was not provided on the vessel lice
Source
Overview Employment
KPB Halibut Landings by Port Pennit Activity
KPB Sablefish (Black Cod) Landings by Port Permit ActiviSy
Cook Inlet Salmon Weight Harvested Pricer Pound of Harvest Number Harvested
Average Weight of Fish Harvested Exvessel Values
KPB Permit Values KPB Salmon Permit Activity Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Harvest Lower Cook Inlet Salmoi
Fishery Taxes Estimated Gross Earnings Total KPB Permit Activity
Kenai Peninsula Borou h Home Page Economic Analysis Office Home Page Economic Analysis It
http. / /www. borough. kenai. ak. us /Econ/1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing%20lndustry... 1/20/2009
Active Threats Across Syslerns
Development of roads or utilities
Residential Development
Existing Roads
Invasive /alien species
Inappropriate Recreational Use
Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems
Forestry practices
Inappropriate Fisheries Mgmt
Commercial /industrial development
Fire suppression
Livestock production practices
Salmon (4
species)
Kenai
Peninsula
rown Bear
Bog /marsh
complex
Upland forest
matrix
Riparian /Poo
dplain
complex
ow gradient
1 -3 order
streams
7.v/P9
Small lakes
Overall
Threat Rank
Total Score
High
High
High
High
High
Hi
High
High
High
Hi •h
2
2.63
2.43
2.20
63
0_29
0.29
0.20
0 03
0.03
0.03
0.00
Threat Status for Targets and Site
Development of reads or utilities
esidental evelopment
Existing Roads
Invasive/alien species
Critical Threats Rankings
Inappropriate Recreational Use
Construction afdltches dike s, drainage or diversion systems =
y Forestry practices
Inappropriate Fisheries Mgmt .)
Iret Commercial/Industrial development ]
arC Fire suppression ]
Livestock production practices ]
The Nature Conservancy
Degree of Threat
Ken_10.25cxis Summary
High
Very High
ID High
ai Medium
Ow
1/20/09
5,2,444,,,-(7 t +c/ ext -efr&7 „Po. vffi f
ALASKA
A
Yentna
River
Susi
R
Cottonwood
Creek Wasilla
Creek
Cook
Inlet
Beluga River Theodore River
Chuitna River
Kustatan River
Big -___ggg
Drift River-
.`
Harriet Creek
Crescent River Redoubt Cr,
Northern
District
Boulde
i Swanson River
Highway
System
Kenai Moose River
Kalgin
land
River Skilak La
Kasiiof
River
Tustumena Lak
uxedni Bay
Central
District
Chinitna Bay
/--- Ninllchik River
Deep Creek
— Stariski Creek
Anchor
Seward
Anchor
Point
Gulf of Alaska
Figure 1. —Major
binaries of tite Cook inlet basin.
107
14,000,000 -
12,000,000
10,000,000
6,000,000 -
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,00
Sockeye salmon
production has been
stable over three
decades but highly
variable from year
to year.
UCL Sockeye Salmon Total Annual Return
1
Decade Average
0 M1-
to 0) 0 .' 04 CO V' 00 CD I1- CO 0)'0 N 0) V 04) CO N- CO 0 0 .- CO C) d' 4) (O i -
r- rv. CO m00000 m mm0000 OD OD o) 000000)0700000 CJ
6) 0) O) 0) 6) O) (D 0)6)0)0)CD) a> 0) 0) O> 0) 0)) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 6) C'' 00000 00
r. -rre -r e- re-e- ter rT P. TN N NN NN CO CO
UPPER COOK INLET SOCKEYE SALMON COMMERCIAL
HARVEST
10,000.000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Chum and coho
800,000
]00,000
600,000
500,000 1
400,000
UCI COHO SALMON COMMERCIAL HARVEST
300,000
salmon commercial
harvests
have decreased
because of regulatory
and natural production 1,200,000
factors.
1,000,000
800,000
it
O
800,000
w
400,000
200,000
EAR
UCI CHUM SALMON COMMERCIAL HARVEST
YEAR
14,000,000 -
12,000,000
10,000,000
6,000,000 -
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,00
Sockeye salmon
production has been
stable over three
decades but highly
variable from year
to year.
UCL Sockeye Salmon Total Annual Return
1
Decade Average
0 M1-
to 0) 0 .' 04 CO V' 00 CD I1- CO 0)'0 N 0) V 04) CO N- CO 0 0 .- CO C) d' 4) (O i -
r- rv. CO m00000 m mm0000 OD OD o) 000000)0700000 CJ
6) 0) O) 0) 6) O) (D 0)6)0)0)CD) a> 0) 0) O> 0) 0)) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 6) C'' 00000 00
r. -rre -r e- re-e- ter rT P. TN N NN NN CO CO
UPPER COOK INLET SOCKEYE SALMON COMMERCIAL
HARVEST
10,000.000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Chum and coho
800,000
]00,000
600,000
500,000 1
400,000
UCI COHO SALMON COMMERCIAL HARVEST
300,000
salmon commercial
harvests
have decreased
because of regulatory
and natural production 1,200,000
factors.
1,000,000
800,000
it
O
800,000
w
400,000
200,000
EAR
UCI CHUM SALMON COMMERCIAL HARVEST
YEAR
Pink salmon commercial harvests have decreased because of
regulatory and price factors.
1,400,000
1,200,000
UCI PINK SALMON COMMERCIAL HARVEST
1,000,000 -
800,000
600,000
400,000
0
( §h OOCo cb% OgO 9�°� �q4 Qip3� „�ti 4�3 Oo'b NC NC �p�O �p''l NC .0 ��9 OHO O�� pOti Op3 p�4, oQh OHO
YEAR
Percent of Total UCI Harvest
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
City of Kenai Processors -Sockeye Salmon
2001
The processor market share
of the commercial sockeye
salmon harvest has decreased
along with the amount of
commercial effort.
2002
2003
03140 044
• 3.5.5. 414
fil 113
4144
94 374 434
21 23 45,1
51.3 565 554
[I5 590 5:1
513
✓ 6,5
eg 557
▪ 5T2
41 522 e3t
9, 331 939
95 1. fq■
tt Ste
• 5733 .3
91 Se 5K1
0? 595 520
Yo3 523 539
5, 31.9 531
V/ 313 In
•1(.8 214
Oa 199
03 Op
• 97: 157
394 1,
117 413
331 457
700
450.
500
2004
Year
2005
No. of UNI »4I4 otel 844 (1121444 P441441 Fi411,3 1990.2008
2006
— Set
2007
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
UGI Sockeye Salmon Sport/HU Harvest
Sport and personal 300,600
use harvests have cip
Ne
increased significantly
with the majority of the fish
harvested from the Kenai
River,
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0r
437' 4,46 peP le igt
• •
Kenai River Sockeye Salmon Sport 8, Personal Use Harvest
yak
sport harvests
sport fisi
aila0lo
;or
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
i Personal Use
® Span
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1200,000 -
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Proposal 1118: Kenai River Sockeye Salmon
No. of Years
Minimum Within Range
2 (6 %) 14 (39 %)
Upper end Inriver
Lower end Inriver
> Maximum
20 (56 %)
r- m 0' O to d' v, t0 h 00 0' O — N M op kr, i0 n 00 CT C N Cr) 'C kn '0 h
t'- N l� N C! C- t C` 00 00 00 00 00 00 co on 00 o0 O, O CT Cr, O■ a 0' rn O, 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0
a 0 rn O. ON 0+ 0, ON 0` O, 0, 0, O` a\ P O, 01 rn rn O` 0, o, O, 0, o, 0 O, 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
^ ^' •• ■ .-. --. • N N N N N N N
IN Sonar Passage Estimates
proposal 118- Kenai river late run sockeye plan.xls
Kenai River escapements have exceeded goals over half the time
which means lost harvest opportunity.
Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 3(1):49 -53. 1996.
Copyright 0 1996 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Can Alaska Balance Economic Growth
with Fish Habitat Protection?
A Biologist's Perspective
Kenneth E. Tarbox and Terry Bendock
This question formed the basis of a session at the Alaska Chapter meeting of the American Fisheries Society in
Wasilla, Alaska, in November 1995. Participants were asked to give their prognosis for the quality and quantity of
fish habitat in Alaska 10 -20 years from now, especially anadromous fish habitat. The legislator's perspective (see
page 81), presented by Senate President Drue Pearce, was slightly modified for publication. The biologist's per-
spective, by Ken Tarbox and Terry Bendock, was not a presentation, per se, but was generated from questions that
followed Senator Pearce's presentation.
Alaska — the word evokes visions of wide -open
plains of tundra, snow- capped mountains, crystal -clear
mountain streams filled with trout and salmon, abun-
dant wildlife, and endless dazzling fiords. These ex-
tensive environs feed the illusion that all is well with
our resources in Alaska, that this will last forever —
that perhaps we can take a few minor liberties with
such a profusion of pristine wilderness. What damage
will a duck bite here or there cause? But is Alaska
really protected by its environmental laws, or is it
slowly dying from duck bites? If we compare our situ-
ation with factors leading to the loss of Pacific salmon
in other areas on the west coast of North America, we
find the same factors present in Alaska.
THE COLUMBIA RIVER
The Columbia River offers a striking example. As
described by Dietrich (1995), the Columbia demon-
strates man's triumph over the perils of nature, and
the damage that such ignorance can inflict on nature.
It is hard today to envision this once 1,200 -mi cataract
of wildly seasonal flows, deep canyons, impassable
falls, and shifting channels that defined this river
throughout the centuries. Superlatives were used to
describe everything about the Columbia; it was louder,
stronger, faster, higher, and more dangerous than any
other river on the continent. It had 109 rapids and wa-
terfalls from Redgrave Canyon down to the Cascades
(for which the mountains were named). It was ice -
covered during the winter and flooded each summer.
The perils of the Columbia were extensively docu-
mented by Dietrich. At the Dalles during the 1880s,
melting snow could raise the river 52 ft over normal
levels. Government surveyors clocked the river's speed
at over 15 mph through Spokane Rapids. Major floods
occurred every 5.3 years on average; the flood of 1894
carried 34 times the volume of its normal flow. Native
fishermen frequently drowned when harvesting the
river's bountiful fishes, and the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany lost nearly 300 seasoned employees to the un-
tamed river. Immigrants traveling the Oregon Trail,
which ended at the Dalles, often crossed the Cascade
Mountains using a lengthy and dangerous toll road
rather than complete their journey in a raft or canoe
on the Columbia.
Interestingly, Dietrich described this hell -on -earth
for humans as heaven for salmon and other fishes: In
spite of the cataracts and shifting channels, the Co-
lumbia produced more salmon than any other water-
way in the world. When settlers began arriving from
the east, however, the salmon runs, which nature had
sustained for centuries, declined within a few decades.
Lewis and Clark visited these waters in 1805; the first
steamboat plied her waters in the 1830s; and by 1873
Authors: KENNETH E. TARBOX is a research biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development Division. 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Suite B, Soldotna. Alaska 99669 -8367. TERRY BENDOCK
is a fishery biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 34828 Kalifomsky Beach Road, Suite
8, Soldotna. Alaska 99669 -8367.
49
50 Issues & Perspectives
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had dynamited its
first Columbia River obstruction, John Day Rock. A
decade later the railroads arrived. By this time, salmon
catches were already declining. In 1878 Livingstone
Stone was hired by the canning industry to start the
first hatchery. In 1892 he addressed the American
Fisheries Society, arguing for the creation of "salmon
parks" to stem the decline, but during the next 80 years
the Columbia was ditched, diverted, dammed, and
diked and salmon all but disappeared (Dietrich 1995).
This unfortunate scenario was repeated on most
other Pacific Northwest rivers with the same conse-
quences. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Na-
tional Research Council (NRC 1996) reported that
"Pacific salmon have disappeared from about 40% of
their historical breeding ranges in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California over the last century, and many
remaining populations are severely depressed in areas
where they were formerly abundant" Of the thousands
of wild salmonid stocks existing a century ago, only
99 native wild stocks are still considered to be healthy
in the Pacific Northwest and California: 32 fall chinook
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 3 spring and summer
chinook, 20 chum 0. keta, 6 pink 0. gorbuscha, 3 coho
0. kisutch, and 1 sockeye 0. nerka salmon stocks and
28 winter steelhead 0. mykiss stocks (Huntington et
al. 1996).
Some argue that taming the Columbia and other
salmon streams of the Northwest was a fair trade and
made good economic sense. They transformed an in-
land desert into an inland empire, opened up exten-
sive transportation corridors, provided cheap electricity
for millions of Americans, and gave rise to industries
that employ tens of thousands of workers. However,
today's citizens of the Pacific Northwest are spending
billions of dollars trying to restore, with little success,
economic loss of a salmon fishing industry as well as
indirect cultural and social losses.
PARALLELS IN ALASKA
Similar taming of Alaskan rivers is not only pos-
sible but probable as resource extraction and other uses
expand. Because of Alaska's size and its comparatively
recent development, when one looks at Alaska as a
whole, it is easy to miss the subtle changes to the re-
source base that are taking place. However, if one looks
more closely, the increasing urbanization of Alaska
and the growing use of nonrenewable resources paral-
lels the situation on the Columbia. In fast- growing
urban areas, such as Anchorage, the loss of salmon
and stream resources are most evident. Even in more
rural areas, however. salmon habitat is being lost at an
increasing rate. Where man treads, the historical pat-
tern remains clear: little regard for fish over short-term
self interests. While we speak today of balancing re-
source development and economic growth, in truth
there is little balance, and aquatic production too rarely
enters the discussions.
On the Kenai River, for example, salmon popu-
lations have been lost to hydroelectric development
(Cooper Creek); important riparian vegetation is be-
ing lost to the infrastructure associated with recre-
ational development and use; wetlands are being filled
and drainage patterns altered; logging is increasing
without adequate protection of salmon habitat (e.g.,
the Forest Practices Act does not require buffer zones
on many private lands and buffer zone size on state
and other private lands is much smaller than most ex-
perienced biologists believe is needed); sewage treat-
ment plant failures have dumped toxic chlorine directly
into the river; agricultural practices have cleared large
areas of land immediately adjacent to the river; and
mining activities are occurring in productive salmon -
producing tributaries. In Prince William Sound the
extensive use of hatcheries has made it more difficult
to properly manage and protect wild salmon stocks
(Peitz and Geiger 1990), and hatcheries in the sound
are therefore a major contributor to wild stock loss
(Eggers et al. 1991).
In the Pacific Northwest declining salmon popu-
lations have coincided with resource uses incompat-
ible with sustainable management of the whole
ecosystem (NRC 1996). In other words, short -term
economic gains have prevailed over long -term resource
planning and decision - making. Lee (1993) indicated
that "when human responsibility does not match the
spatial, temporal, or functional scale of natural phe-
nomena, unsustainable use of the resources is likely
and will persist as long as the mismatch of scales re-
mains" Declines in salmon production due to habitat
loss are masked and hard to detect relative to the time
frame of institutional decision - making. The failure of
institutions to adequately protect the resource over the
rights of the entrepreneur is predictable because it is
usually politically easier to favor economic growth over
conservation. And by the time the affected natural re-
sources have collapsed, the original policymakers are
usually gone, leaving a fresh group of policymakers
to respond to the public outcry to bring back these lost
resources. Reclamation, however, is usually prohibi-
tively expensive or socially or technologically impos-
sible, leaving accomplishments largely in the token
range.
Can Alaska Balance Growth with Habitat Protection: Biologist's Perspective? • Tarbox and Bendock 51
In Alaska we have the same institutional function
and structure that led to the decline of Columbia River
salmon. These institutional factors include fragmen-
tation of scientific effort, responsibility, and author-
ity; a lack of accountability; boundaries of property
and government that do not follow biological tem-
plates: unilateral or noncooperative decision - making;
and institutions that fail to learn from experiences (i.e.,
adaptive management has not been embraced as a
working concept; NRC 1996). In addition to these fac-
tors, Alaska has an additional impediment to habitat
protection: unless harm to the resources can be con-
clusively demonstrated, development can proceed. This
"burden of proof" is placed on the permitting agen-
cies that all too often are understaffed, overworked,
and subject to political pressures for funding. Juxta-
posed against well- funded and highly motivated de-
velopment interests, this mismatch continues to erode
our resources.
State of Alaska agencies responsible for collect-
ing scientific data are fragmented both between agen-
cies and within agencies. For example, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) assigns habi-
tat responsibilities to 1 division and scientific research
and management responsibilities to 3 other divisions,
which are further fragmented into user - oriented divi-
sions instead of biological subunits. Therefore, the
Division of Sport Fish and the Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development Division are frequently
at odds over allocative issues rather than having a co-
hesive approach to scientific research or habitat man-
agement. According to the management coordinator
for hatchery site selection, salmon hatchery pe.-mit-
ting, which occurred mostly during the late 1970s and
early 1980s, was administered by a division that was
mandated responsibility for statewide hatchery devel-
opment. Therefore, desirable physical attributes of
candidate hatchery sites and external pro - hatchery
pressures often received more weight in the permit-
ting process than did potential detrimental impacts of
the proposed hatchery on associated wild stocks (R. L.
Wilbur, ADF &G, Juneau, personal communication).
Between state and federal agencies, programs are
even more fragmented. Agencies have development
mandates that are frequently at odds with maintaining
salmon production. The decision - making process is
often adversarial and not cooperative; that is, each
agency, struggling to meet its perceived mission, of-
ten ignores input from sister agencies. For example,
anADF &G habitat biologist recently wrote in a memo
to the director of her division that state permitting agen-
cies involved with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program need to work together with greater respect
and less acrimony and that the program, while "good
on paper," unfortunately "falls apart under the press
of daily work" (J. Schempf, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Juneau, personal communication). HDR
Engineering (1995) found that current practices in
Alaska are inadequate for identifying. considering, and
controlling cumulative impacts on the habitat. They
noted that obstacles included a lack of commitment
from top -level officials; unclear mandates and direc-
tives; uncertainty about the definition of cumulative
impacts; insufficient resources; a lack of guidance,
tools, standards, and thresholds for practitioners to
apply; a lack of training and experience; lack of pub-
lic understanding; inadequate information sources; and
political pressure against addressing cumulative im-
pacts.
Accountability for decisions is nullified by time
because policy decisions of detriment to the resource
often are not manifest to the public until years later.
For example, the ADF &G Habitat Division budget for
the 1997 fiscal year included a general fund reduc-
tion, inadequate remuneration for inflationary in-
creases, redirection of habitat protection functions to
special projects, and failure to fund needed anadro-
mous stream identification. Effects of these policy
decisions on the salmon resource, however, will not
be evident for at least 1 -2 salmon life cycles, by which
time many of the budget framers will have been re-
placed or retired. Had the policymakers' cuts been in
salmon instead of budget dollars, the public's reac-
tion, rather than delayed by years, would have been
immediate and certain.
The boundaries of private and government prop-
erty in Alaska do not conform to biological templates.
The lack of bioregionalism in the decision - making pro-
cess was one of the primary causes of institutional fail-
ure in the Northwest. Rivers were not treated as the
center of biological processes but were used instead
as perimeters of government structure (NRC 1996).
In Alaska, we make property boundaries based on simi-
lar criteria. For example, jurisdictions governing land
uses in the Susitna River basin include several bor-
ough governments, more than a dozen municipalities,
numerous federal and state government agencies, the
military, and large private landowners, such as native
and other corporations. The basin is also accessible to
over 70% of Alaska's population via the highway sys-
tem, or a quick boat or plane ride. Resource extrac-
tion, land development, and recreational pressures
within the basin increase yearly. In such a complex
jurisdictional environment one might rightly question
how we can incorporate bioregionalism into our deci-
sion- making. Unfortunately, a geopolitical template
52 Issues & Perspectives
based on drainages and salmon migration routes is
missing in Alaska, as it was in the Northwest.
Private land transfers from public Alaskan lands
also creates significant threats to the salmon resources
of the state. For example. Koski (1996) reported that
Duck Creek in Juneau is listed by the Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation as 1 of 30 anadro-
mous streams imperiled by urban runoff and related
mismanagement. A local advisory committee for this
watershed, however, in attempting restoration, found
that "many public land managers and private land
owners are either unaware of common best manage-
ment practices (BPM) for urban watersheds or are
skeptical of BPMs that are untested in Alaska:' As more
Alaskan lands, including critical fish and wildlife habi-
tats, pass into private ownership, citizen and corpo-
rate landowners instantly become enfranchised with
the responsibility for sustaining public resources. The
absence of incentives to do this leads to short-term,
self - interest decisions and not long -term public good.
The failure to maintain critical habitat lands during
these transfers puts all resources at risk. As an example,
over 66% of the land adjacent to the lower 50 mi of
the Kenai River is now in private ownership. These
high -value wetlands and riparian areas provide criti-
cal habitat for rearing salmonids, but these uses are
fading as owners develop the critical areas for com-
mercial, residential, and recreational uses (Liepitz
1994).
Finally, Alaska is failing to learn or adapt based
on experiences of other areas. While there are numer-
ous examples of practices that have led to the extirpa-
tion of salmon in areas outside Alaska, we continue to
follow the same course in Alaska. A recent buffer -strip
argument on the Kenai River points out our failure to
learn. Narrow buffer strips along a watercourse dem-
onstrate fundamental misunderstanding of the aquatic
system, yet in the process of implementing buffer strips
for the Kenai River, the Kenai Peninsula Borough not
only promulgated an inadequate 50 -ft buffer strip but
excluded its tributaries and other watershed areas from
such protection. They failed to learn and adapt from
the experience of the Pacific Northwest. In addition,
they chose to follow the easier political decision of
private property rights over the common property right
of salmon resource protection. Like so many political
decisions, the impacts will be felt by all Alaskans, but
most Alaskans did not participate in, nor were even
aware of, the decision- making process.
WILL ALASKANS CHOOSE SALMON?
Will Alaskans consciously choose to have salmon
in their future, or will we find ourselves on the same
downhill track as our neighbors to the south? The
strong populations of salmon we have today will not
survive without our efforts, our sacrifice, and our de-
termination. Alaskans certainly agree that salmon are
of great importance to our culture, economic future,
and well -being (Meacham 1992), but the all -is -well
illusion accepted by many political leaders and the gen-
eral public has led to complacency. This myth must be
abandoned if we choose to have salmon, and we will
have to (1) change the "burden -of- proof" concept in
our habitat decision - making process, (2) make deci-
sions on watershed boundaries or bioregions rather than
on political boundaries, (3) reorganize state agencies
into biologically sound rather than user - oriented divi-
sions, (4) educate and continue to train our scientific
staffs on habitat- related issues, (5) Learn from and adapt
habitat protection policies by systematically evaluat-
ing past practices, (6) not assume that hatcheries can
sustain harvest in the face of habitat and wild stock
losses, (7) increase research programs on salmon life
histories and enhance inventory assessments of salmon
populations, and (8) take into account the long -term
time frames of salmon production in cooperative, in-
stitutional decision - making. Alaska's sparse popula-
tions and remoteness has sheltered us from many of
the difficulties experienced by our neighbors to the
south, yet upon closer examination, we continue to
see similar outcomes from comparable actions. Our
wild salmon populations are doomed to follow the
same pattern of loss as those in the rest of the Pacific
Northwest only if we apathetically and myopically
continue to practice the permissive habitat policies of
the past.
LITERATURE CITED
Dietrich, W. 1995. Northwest Passage, the great Columbia
River. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Eggers, D. M., L. R. Peitz, B. G. Bue, and T. M. Willette. 1991.
Trends in abundance of hatchery and wild stocks of pink
salmon in Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak,
Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Professional Paper 35. Juneau.
HDR Engineering. 1995. Cumulative impacts in Alaska: where
they occur and how agencies and coastal districts address
them. Final report submitted to Cumulative Impacts in
Alaska Management Team, Office of the Governor, Juneau.
Huntington, C., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers. 1996. A survey of
healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pa-
cific Northwest and California. Fisheries 21:3:6 -13.
Can Alaska Balance Growth with Habitat Protection: Biologist's Perspective? • Tarbox and Bendock 53
Koski, K. 1996. Habitat restoration in Alaska. Oncorhynchus:
newsletter of the Alaska Chapter of the American Fisher-
ies Society 16(3):1.
Lee, K. N. 1993. Greed, scale mismatch, and learning. Eco-
logical Applications 3:560 -564,
Liepitz, G. S. 1994. An assessment of the cumulative impacts
of development and human uses on fish habitat in the Kenai
River. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Sport Fish, Technical Report 94 -6, Anchorage.
Meacham, C. 1992. Commercial fisheries: Alaska ranks first.
Alaska's Wildlife 24(2):2 -4.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream salmon and
society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Peitz, L., and H. J. Geiger. 1990. A tagging study of the effects
of hatcheries on the 1987 pink salmon fishery in Prince
William Sound, Alaska. Pages 1 -17 in H. J. Geiger, editor.
Pilot studies in tagging Prince William Sound hatchery pink
salmon with coded -wire tags. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Fishery Re-
search Bulletin 90 -02, Juneau.
Main Identity
From: "Shields, Patrick A (DFG)" <pat.shields @alaska.gov>
To: 'Tarbox, Ken" <tarbox @ptialaska.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:10 PM
Subject: kenai processors
2001 SALAMATOFSFDS
2001 SNUGHARBOR
2001 PACIFIC STAR
2001. IFP KENAI
2001 AKSALMONPURINC
2001 FISHHAWK AK
2002 IFP KENAI
2002 FISHHAWK AK
2002 AKSALMONPURINC
2002 PACIFIC STAR
2002 SALAMATOFSFDS
2002 SNUGHARBOR
2003 FISHHAWK AK
2003 PACIFIC STAR
2003 IFP KENAI
2003 SALAMATOFSFDS
2003 SNUGHARBOR
2003 AKSALMONPURINC
2004 AKSALMONPURINC
2004 IFP KENAI
2004 PACIFIC STAR
2004 SALAMATOFSFDS
2004 SNUGHARBOR
'2004 FISHHAWK AK
2005 IFP KENAI
2005 FISHHAWK AK
2005 PACIFIC STAR
2005 AKSALMONPURINC
2005 SNUGHARBOR
2005 SALAMATOFSFDS
2006 SALAMATOFSFDS
2006 V- AKBLUEHARVST
1/15/2009
2006 PACIFIC STAR
2006 IFP KENAI
2006 FISHHAWK AK
2006 AKSALMONPURINC
2006 SNUGHARBOR
2007 KENAIRIVERSFDS
2007 V- AKBLUEHARVST
2007 PACIFIC STAR
2007 SNUGHARBOR
2007 IFP KENAI
2007 FISHHAWK AK
2007 SALAMATOFSFDS
2007 AKSALMONPURINC
2007 FREDSAKSEAFOOD
Page 2 of 2
1/15/2009
SALMON TASK FORCE
Meets
Kenai City Council Chambers
:00 p.m.
Committee Member Name and
Address
Home
Phone
Business
Phone
Email Address
Term Ends
James Butler, III
Salmon Task Force
1711 Kaknu
Kenai, AK 99611
P
i ll1butl nt@b
dnandbutler.coxn
Robert Scott
Salmon Task Force
salamatofseafoods,' acsal?ska. net,
Ken Tarbox
Salmon Task Force
f
tarbo ni tialaska.net
Dwight Kramer
Salmon Task Force
f
dwimarPaci.net
Peter Micciche
Salmon Task Force
pe
amicc che( konocophillips coin
Robert Ruffner
Salmon Task Force
t
robergCkenatwat eershed.org
John Torgerson
Salmon Task Force
jtorgersonOikpedcto g
riddl oalaska.ne
e
Council Member Joe Moore
City of Kenai
P.O. Box 403
Kenai, AK 99611
283 -4610
262 -7478 (p)
262-6107 (f)
io
Council Liaison
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611.
283 -8231
efreasici.. kenai_ak.us
City Clerk
12/31/08)
SALMON TASK FORCE
Meets
Kenai City Council Chambers
:00 p.m.
Committee Member Name and
Address
Home Business
Phone Phone
Email Address
Term Ends
James Butler, III
Salmon Task Force
1711 Kaknu
Kenai, AK 99611
jimbutlert)baidwinandbutler . com
Robert Scott
Salmon Task Force
sa l..amatofseafoodsivacsalaska.net
Ken Tarbox
Salmon Task Fo ce
Dwight Kramer
Salmon Task Force
tarbox(alptialaska.net
dwimar4Dgci.net
Peter Micci,che
Salmon Task Force
peter. a.miceiche✓ conocgahillips. com
Robert Ruffner
Salmon Task Force
robertikenaiwaters le( .o
John Torgerson
Salmon Task Force
jtoroersor>nkpedd.org
Ross Harding
Salmon Task Force
riddle(alaska.net
Council Member Joe Moore
City of Kenai
P.O. Box 403
Kenai, AK 99611
283 -46I0
262 -7478 (p)
262 -6107 (f)
joem, uaitrogco.com
Council Liaison
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
283 -8231
cfre as n/ c i. k en ai. alc u s
City Clerk
12/31/08)
d
..v..iur"....
1969
12,386
691,815
100,684
32,4991
267,686
1,105,0701
1968
4,536
1,104,896
468,160
2,276,993
1,107,903
4,962,488
1967
7,859
1,380,062
177,729
32,229
296,837
1,894,716
1966
8,544
1,852,114
289,837
2,005,745
532,756
4,688,996
1965
9,741
1,412.350
153,619
23,963
316,444
1,916,117
1964
4,531
970,055
452,654
3,231,961
1,079,084
5,738,285
1963
17,536
942,980
197,140
30,436
387,027
1,575,119
1962
20,210
1,147,573
350,324
2,711,689
970,582
5,200,378
1961
19,737
1,162,303
117,778
34,017
349,628
1,683,463
1960
27,512
923,314
311,461
1,411,605
659,997
3,333,889
1997 -2006
Avg
13,259
1,158,746
261,939
1,179,114
596,794
3,209,852
* -Data has been updated as Alaska Department of Fish and Game staff have made ad ustments to their database.
Source - UCI Catch Statistics
Overview Employment
KPB Halibut Landings by Psr1 PsLIp to hty
KPB Sablefish (Black Cod) Landings by Port Permit Activity
Cook Inlet Salmon Weight Harvested Price per Pound of Harvest Number Harvested
Average Weight of Fish Harvested Exvessel Values
KPB Penult Values KPB Salmon Permit Activity Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Harvest Lower Cook Inlet
Salmon Harvest
Fishery Taxes Estimated Gross Earnings Total KPB Permit Activity
Kenai Peninsula Borough Home Page Economic Analysis Office Home Page Economic Analysis Index
hap.//www.boroughlenaLak.us/EconilS P%20data/Commercial%20Fishing%201ndustry... 1/20/2009
New Page 1
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone - (907) 262 -4441 or (800) 478 -4441 or on the web www.borough.kenai.ak.us
Kenai Peninsula Borough Commercial Fishing Industry
rage 1 or z
Upper Cook Inlet - Crescent, Kasilof, Kenai and Yentna Rivers
Number of Harvested Salmon - 1960-2006*
Chinook
Sockeye
Coho
Pink
Chum
Total
2006
18,023
2,191,573
177,694
404,111
64,032
2,855,433
2005
28,171
5,238,306
224,657
48,599
69,740
5,609,473
2004
27,475
4,926,220
311,056
357,939
146,164
5,768,854
2003
18,490
3,476,159
101,756
48,782
121,767
3,766,954
2002
12,714
2,773,118
246,281
446,960
237,949
3,717,022
2001
9,295
[ 1,826,833
113,311
72,559
84,494
2,106,492
2000
7,350
1,322,482
236,871
146,482
127,069
1,840,254
1999
14,383
[ 2,680,510
125,908
16,174
174,541
3,011,516
1998
8,124
1,219,242
160,660
551,260
95,654
2,034,940
1997
13,292]
4,176,738
152,404
70,933
103,036
156,501
4,516,403
4,624,308
1996
14,3061
3,888,922
321,668
242,911
1995
17,893
2,951,827
446,954
133,575
529,422
4,079,671
1994
19,941
3,565,586
583,793
523,434
303,177
4,995,931'
1993
18,871
4,755,329
306,882
100,934
122,770
5,304,786
1992
17,171
9,108,353
468,930
695,861
274,303
10,564,618
1991 1
13,542
2,178,331
426,487
14,663
280,223
2,913,246
1990
16,105
3,604,259
501,643
603,434
351,123
5,076,564
1989
26,737
5,011,124
339,818
67,441
122,051
5,567,171
1988
29,0801
6,843,833
560,948
471,076
710,615
8,615,552
1987
39,431
9,465,994
449,421
109,381
348,809
10,413,036
1986
39,254
1 4,791,562
757,319
1,300,939
1,134,817
8,023,891
1985
24,088
4,060,429
667,213
87,828
772,849
5,612,407
1984
10,062
2,106,714
449,993
617,452
680,726
3,864,947
1983
20,634
5,049,733
516,322
70,327
1,114,858
6,771,874
1982
20,870
3,259,864
792,224
790,644
1,432,940
6,296,542
1981
12,240
1,439,262
484,405
127,143
831,977
2,895,027
1980
13,798
1,573,588
271,416
1,786,421
387,815
4,033,038
1979
13,738
924,406
265,164
72,980
649,758
1,926,046
1978
17,299
2,621,421
219,193
1,688,442
571,779
5,118,134
1977
14,790
2,052,291
192,593
553,855
1,233,436
4,046,965
1976
10,865
1,664,149
208,663
1,256,728
469,180
3,609,585
1975
4,787
684,751
227,376
336,330
951,588
2,204,832
1974
6,596
497,185
200,125
483,730
396,840
1,584,476
1973
5,194
670,098
104,420
326,184
667,573
1,773,469
1972
16,086
879,811
80,896
628,566
626,414
2,231,773
1971
19,765
636,289
100,362
35,590
323,945
1,115,951
1970
8,336
732,572
275,205
814,760
750,774
2,581,647
http: / /www. borough. kenai. ak. us /Econ/l S_ P% 20data/ Commercia l %20Fishing %20Industry... 1/20/2009
kvcw ragc 1
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone - (907) 262 -4441 or (800) 478 -4441 or on the web www.borough.kenai.ak.us
Kenai Peninsula Borough Commercial Fishing Industry
SALMON Permits and Fishing Activity by Area of Residence
Pennit Holders Permits Issued Fishermen Fishing Permits Fished
Pounds Landed Gross Earnings KPB History Vessels by Activity
KPB SALMON - Number of Permit Holders
Residence
2002
2003 2004 2005
Anchor Point
41
40 37 31
Clam Gulch
29
251 25
24
Cooper Landing
4
41 6
English Bay
1
1 1
31
1
5
Fritz Creek
5
Halibut Cove
5
81 5
5
Homer
321
3401 339
346
Hope
1
11 1
1
Kasilof
141
1401 136
2161 218
135
207
Kenai
213
Moose Pass
2
1i 1
1i
Nanwalek
5
51 5
5
Nikiski
50
461 49
47
Nikolaevsk
12
121 11
9
Ninilehik
46
5011 49
50
Port Graham
I1
111 10
10
Seldovia
34
33 33
321 (i'�
Seward
4 0 j
3 3 6
Soldotna
136
1261 1261 125
Sterling
16
191 18
21
Tyonek
20
19j 17
15
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
1,135
1,13411 1,128
1,111
State of Alaska Total
11,035
10,85; 10,662
10,594
10.4 %1 10.64 10.5%
KPB as Percent of AK
10.3%
Source Totals may include data which excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the di]
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
Residence
Anchor Point
Clam Gulch
Cooper Landing
English Bay
KPB SALMON - Number of Permits Issued
2002
2003 2004 r 2005
41
311
4011
27j
37
27j
31
26
41 41
6
1s.
http. / /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/lS_P%20data/Commercial%20Fishing%20Industry ... 1/20/2009
INew rage 1
Halibut Cove
Homer
Hope
Ka do
rage z 01 0
5
Kenai
Moose Pass
Nanwalek
Nikiski
Nikolaevsk
Ninilchik
Port Graham
Seldovia
Seward
Soldotna
Sterling
Tyonek
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
State of Alaska Total
KPB as Percent of AK
361;
36518
5
375
s
r
L.
148
147i
1431)
142
214
2
217
220?
209
1
5
50
461
12
121
511 5
4911 47
L
4
11
34
45
137
16
53
11'
33
421
127
5611
54
10i; 10
341 32
431
128:.
40
127
21
0
72
9
75
1,181;;
,161
11,612
11,496£'
11,344 11,282
Source Totals may include data which excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the diff
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
http:/ /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing%201ndustry... 1/20/2009
KPB SALMON Number of Fishers Fishing
Residence
2002
2003 1
2004
2005
Anchor Point
j
25
21
25
191
Clam Gulch
25
181
23
(23)
20
Cooper Landing . .
3
41
5
4
E
English Bay
14
11
1
0
Fritz Creek
61
31
3
(5)
4
Halibut Cove
j
41
7i
4
4
Homer
2061
O
250
r . . _- 0�
II
250
o}[
276;
Hope
Kasilof
107
1141
112
107
Kenai
155
146E
146]
152
Moose Pass
1
11
1
1
Nanwalek
4
4
1
0
Nikiski
44E
391
38
381
Nikolaevsk
(
101
91
10
(8)
6j
Ninilchik
32]
40
36
321
Port Graham
0E
2E
31
2
Seldovia
i
18
191
23
22
Seward
E
21
161
20
251
11
,
http:/ /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing%201ndustry... 1/20/2009
new rage 1
Page 3 of 6
Soldotna
941
991
93
97':1
Sterling
91
151
16
(18) 151E
Tyonek
19
41
7
101
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
7741
8131
818
8441E
State of Alaska Total
6,5711
6,9551
7,1051
9,8991F
8.5 %1F
KPB as Percent of AK
11.8 %1
11.7 %1
11.5%
Source Totals may include data w -Lich excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the di
that value and the following value is not included in total activity.
KPB SALMON Number of Permits Fished
Residence
2002
2003
2004
2005
Anchor Point
24
25
25
19
Clam Gulch
25
18
23
(23) 20
—
Cooper Landing
3
4
5
4
0
English Bay
1
1
1
Fritz Creek .. ......
5
3
_._. 3
- -. -(5) 4
Halibut Cove
4
8
4
4
Homer
206
248
248
275
Hope
0
0
0
0
Kasilof
107
113
112
107
Kenai
155
146
145
150
Moose Pass
1
1
1
1
Nanwalek
4
4
1
0
Nikiski
44
39
37
38
Nikolaevsk
10
9
10
(8) 6
Ninilchik
32
40
37
33
Port Graham
0
21
4
2
Seldovia
18
19
23
22
Seward
20
16
19
24
Soldotna
93
99
91
99
Sterling
9
15
4
17
7
(18) 15
10
Tyonek
7
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
769
809
810
842
State of Alaska Total
6,645
7,007
7,179
7,508
KPB as Percent of AK
11.6%
11.5%
11.3%
11.2%
Source
Totals may include data which excludes confidential fisheries. Values in parenthesis area actual fishers, but the di
that value and the following value is not included in total activity,
Residence
Anchor Point
Clam Gulch
Cooper Landing
KPB SALMON Pounds Landed
2002
1,508,819
2003 2004
1,484,662 1,691,473
2005
2,120,656
X
X
1,106,001
88,247 90,852
775,650
121,529
http://www.borough.kenai.akus/Econ/1S_P%20data/Cornmercial%20Fi shing %20lndustry... 1/20/2009
New 1-'age 1
English Bay
Fritz Creek
Halibut Cove
Homer
Hope
Kenai
Moose Pass
Nanwalek
Nikiski
Nikolaevsk
Page 4 of b
Ninilchik
Port Graham
Seldovia
Seward
Soldotna
Sterling
Tyonek
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
X
X
0
227,402
156,256
X
426,511
X
153,663
117,126
152,234
30,245,766
0
5,362,563
5,505,701
33,195,907
0
6,453,268
5,909,198
35,995,879
0
5,272,289
10,603,558
56,590,026
0
8,031,077
10,768,431
X
X
X
X
52,702
1,525,835
State of Alaska Total
KPB as Percent of AK
357,786
84,246
1,272,076
228,028
X
1,240,367
666,747
1,134,871
0
1,370,592
X
1,549,492
0
1,426,571
221,288
1,246,666
X
928,576
990,874
715,6141,
821,020
4,245,088
3,912,744
2,529,685
5,357,395
1,140,407
2,283,725
6,113,299
255,161
6,038
56,585,524
407,865
1,559,963
725,636
X
60,924,905
X
67,316,885
34,930
93,195,218
523,940,841
10.8%
635,835,025
9.6 %
697,891,658
9.6%
872,577,336
10.7%
Source
KPB SALMON Estimated Gross Earnings - in $
Residence
2002 1 2003
2004 1
2005
Anchor Point
486,7091 432,290
680,333;
787,473
Clam Gulch
X1 X
610,866
730,384
Cooper Landing
X1
44,329
45,253
71,769
English Bay
X
X
X
0
Fritz Creek
94.4681
X
X
105,317
Halibut Cove
79,720T
795,197
97,584
136,064
w--
Homer
7,462,316
1 11,421,694
12,191,282
17,149,665
Hope
0
0
0.,
0
Kasilof
1,666,238
2,336,962
2,543,_429'
3,888,164
_
Kenai
2,632,461:
3,347,527
6,071,3371
7,585,112
Moose Pass
X
j X
Xi
X
Nanwalek
29,0701
56,298
X
0
Nikiski
591,055'
583,664
785,5321
1,162,583
Nikolaevsk
157,382
118,146
366,6021
202,344
Ninilchik
548,269
817,189
1,003,135j
1,029,818
Port Graham
0
X
X
X
Seldovia
558,316
699,239
585,589
671,522
I
http:/ /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ/1S P%20data/Commercial%20Fishing%201ndustry... 1/20/2009
LNCW rage a
Seward
985,106'; - 826, 765; L -.-. -- 7812959x-..__._. --_.1,119,855
Freezer /Canner
Soldotna
1,580,473
2,062,690
2,692,599;
2006
2
Sterling
116,8191 253,670 }j 614,580
673,514
28,763
Tyonek
6,878 X11 X
Kenai Peninsula Borough Total
17,544,108
i 23,957,776
j 193,093,29111
12.4 %l
[ 29,302,019
254,998,047
1 L5%
39,959,909
296,696,909
13.3%
2
State of Alaska Total
144,936,153
KPB as Percent of AK
12.1%
2003
2
KPB ALL FISHERIES - Permitting and Fishing Activity
848
# Permit Holders
# Permits Issued
# Fishermen Who
Fished
#Permits Fished
Total Pounds
Landed
E
2006
1,409
2,138
1,010
1,337
112,769,410
2005
1,399
2,163
1,043
1,414
138,982,655
2004
1,445
2,231
1,038
1,403
112,198,682
2003
1,468
2,253
1,059
1,428
102,080,762
2002
1,473
2,308
1,029
1,393
104,300,781
2001
1,536
2,541
1,103
1,572
97,664,278
2000
1,548
2,657
1,180
1,688
101,217,189
1999
1,530
2,694
1,189
1,681
107,951,549
1998
1,544
2,874
1,188
1,758
97,721,128
1997
1,561
2,991
1,263
1,944
102,657,508
1996
1,556
2,920
1,265
1,945
95,764,044
1995
1,590
3,072
1,286
1,970
110,267,702
1994
1,697
3,475
1,334
2,267
104,987,402
1993
1,736
3,614
1,380
2,264
105,019,756
1992
1,899
4,033
1,505
2,616
148,081,710
1991
2,008
4,166
1,555
2,614
102,442,236
1990
2,117
4,262
1,645
2,532
100,561,369
1989
2,082
4,180
1,374
1,855
101,523,638
1988
2,095
4,320
1,644
2,646
108,011,211
1987
2,041
4,157
1,602
2,661
111,922,827
1986
1,912
3,506
1,442
2,094
84,972,391
1985
2,008
3,626
1,341
1,975
84,352,451
1984
2,140
3,841
1,423
2,070
74,880,437
1983
2,196
4,035
1,525
2,130
80,374,719
1982
2,143
3,969
1,442
2,031
87,645,932
1981
1,955
3,852
1,316
1,927
79,108,143
1980
2,020
3,974
1,342
1,944
67,644,535
Source
Total Number of Vessels in KPB by Activity
Freezer /Canner
Tender/Packer
Guided Fishing
Commercial Fishing
2006
2
56
955
2005
2
86
972
2004
2
92
847
1,052
2003
2
89
848
1,091
2002
2
106
832
1,091
hap:/ /www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Econ /1 S_P %20data/ Commercial%20Fishing %20lndustry ... 1/20/2009
New ?age 1
Page b of b
2001
3
101
828
1,190
2000
5
120
811
1,243
1999
5
131
797
1,288
1998
5
127
743
1,366
1997
5
144
715
1,491
1996
8
148
682
1,539
1995
14
147
578
1,604
1994
14
158
523
1,676
1993
14
156
480
1,730
1992
14
173
513
1,913
1991
10
184
483
2,057
1990
9
193
460
2,150
* - Vessels can be used for more than one activity and can use multiple gear types. As a result, in these categories a vessel m
multiple times. Some vessels may not be counted at all if the activity or gear information was not provided on the vessel lice
Source
Overview Employment
KPB Halibut Landings_ y_Port Permit Activity
KPB Sablefish (Black Cod) Landings by Port Permit Activity
Cook Inlet Salmon Weight Harvested Price per Pound of Harvest Number Harvested
Average Weight. of Fish Harvested Exvessel Values
KPB Permit Values KPB Salmon Permit Activity Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Harvest Lower Cook. inlet Salmoi
Fishery Taxes Estimated Gross Earnings Total KPB Permit Activity
Kenai Peninsula Borough Home Page Economic Analysis Office Home Page Economic Analys
http: / /www.borough.kenai.ak, us /Eton/ 1 S_P %20data/ Commercial %20Fishing %20lndustry... 1/20/2009
SALMON TASK FORCE -- LIST OF PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED:
1. The Great Salmon Run: Competition Between Wild and Farmed Salmon, Traffic
North America.
2. Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in
Upper Cook Inlet, Kenai River Sportfishing Association.
3. 2007 Economic Study of sport fishing in Alaska due out in mid January, ADF&G
web site link
4. State of Alaska Seafood Economic Strategies, McDowell Group.
S. Economic Impacts and Contributions of Sportfishing in Alaska, 2007 Report
(executive summary).
6. Economic Impacts and contributions of Sportfishing in Alaska, 2007 Report by
Southwick Associates, Inc., Sm. J. Romberg, Allen E. Bingham, Gretchen B.
Jennings, and Robt. A. Clark.